The Tim Sherwood Thread

[dn1982]

If we create as many chances as we did on Saturday we will win more than we lose and we created that many whilst not at the top of our game. It wasnt to long ago when shots where like unicorns.

[Neil]

If we create as many chances as we did on Saturday we will win more than we lose and we created that many whilst not at the top of our game. It wasnt to long ago when shots where like unicorns.

 

Indeed, there are all these pockets of optimism.  There was a time where I was wondering where our next shot on target would come, let alone our next goal.

 

You can say so much is the new manager bounce, but you know the little things really count from where we were.  Some players are starting to come now, who have been written off for ages under several previous managers.

 

I can't remember when we got zog in for example, just after oneil?  But he's been pretty crap throughout and now seemingly has some extra bow to his game.  As much as the new bounce, that must be some recognition from the manager seeing something in training and sticking him in the right place.  Good ingredients, a long way to go yet...but the little things are just steadying the ship and that's all we need for now.

[Wainy316]

McCleish signed Zog in his first summer.

[Villan4Life]

The referee was awful and was loudly booed and at one point he got a virtual standing ovation for giving us a free kick. Even though they shaded possession we had loads of chances and could have snatched it as Sherwood said I can't wait wait to get something we don't deserve. First half we were off the pace but were a lot better 2nd half. Not having a left back is hurting as it stops the natural flow of the game with who ever is playing there coming inside. The 2 injuries knackered our subs so all in all it was meant to be our day but if you can't win it we should edge on the side of caution and not lose every point is vital!!

Ref was a guy named: Bobby (Robert) Madley.

 

He is from West Yorkshire and shown 4 Red Cards in 14 Premiership games he has been a ref in this season.

[bobzy]

Interested to see how Sherwood sets up us against Man Utd.  It's his first game against a "big" team as Villa boss - will he try and tighten things up or not?

[Stevo985]

These are the games where we'll be really gambling if we go with 4-4-2.

The two in midfield will struggle big time I would think.

[Neil]

It's a shame that united just hit a run of form, downing these would have been a great lift for the remainder of our season.

[omariqy]

**** it we are going to lose most probably so we might as well go for it.  Actually wait, I forgot about goal difference!

[terrytini]

Interested to see how Sherwood sets up us against Man Utd.  It's his first game against a "big" team as Villa boss - will he try and tighten things up or not?

I hope not. Our results were rarely any good when we played 'tighter' and I would rather he was if anything more open and more positive. I think he is correct when he says our players are better suited or that, also I have seen other sides get results attacking - albeit a below par earlier in the season - United.

And stuff the goal difference ! If we are positive in every game well get the points and it won't matter.

A free hit, nothing to lose in that one, so go for it.

[terrytini]

Yeah Swansea are a good side. Double over Mancs this year, recently won away at Soton and now a double over our mightyness.

It just doesnt matter whos in charge though, AVFC will always concede late goals that cost us points.

 

I think when you analyse the way we play, we are always susceptible to late goals....we are a very open team.

some of our fans like that they see it as exciting....as do Albion fans, watching Albion of course.

 

I find it a bit naive bordering on sloppy....the amount of times we give the ball away unforced is a concern imo, particularly when we play a team like Swansea who deny you space.

 

........under Sir Ron we went 1 goal up at home it was all over.

Yes but we were a top side then, and top sides can do it.

IMO it is folly for any side outside the top 6 to even contemplate shutting up shop, or attempting much in the way of game management.

It would work the same way game management works for the England cricket team !

For me, over the course of a season full on powerful attacking play, or attempts at it, will do the job, and unless we are at least 2 goals clear with 5 minutes to go, or 3 goals clear with ten, I'd prefer us to stay on the front foot at all times.

[Zatman]

I bet of all the Premier League era clubs that have never been relegated, we have given up the most goals in the last 5 minutes of games. Not sure where I can look to confirm this suspicion though...

 

yep I remember think in MON 2nd season we conceded a lot of them. just checked 12 goals after 80 minutes that season

[TRO]

 

 

Yeah Swansea are a good side. Double over Mancs this year, recently won away at Soton and now a double over our mightyness.

It just doesnt matter whos in charge though, AVFC will always concede late goals that cost us points.

 

I think when you analyse the way we play, we are always susceptible to late goals....we are a very open team.

some of our fans like that they see it as exciting....as do Albion fans, watching Albion of course.

 

I find it a bit naive bordering on sloppy....the amount of times we give the ball away unforced is a concern imo, particularly when we play a team like Swansea who deny you space.

 

........under Sir Ron we went 1 goal up at home it was all over.

Yes but we were a top side then, and top sides can do it.

IMO it is folly for any side outside the top 6 to even contemplate shutting up shop, or attempting much in the way of game management.

It would work the same way game management works for the England cricket team !

For me, over the course of a season full on powerful attacking play, or attempts at it, will do the job, and unless we are at least 2 goals clear with 5 minutes to go, or 3 goals clear with ten, I'd prefer us to stay on the front foot at all times.

 

 

TT I agree, but we have been saying this for over 10 years. TS has only just come in so it will take time.....but only if we are on the right road( I hope we are)....with previous managers, we never was on the right road so time was never our bed friend.

 

Swansea, was never a top side, they have developed in to a very good side IMO.....Our side under RS was never a Top side we developed in to one, using modest buys.

 

My point is we have to learn and develop and make note of the teams that are currently better than us, its the learning and developing process.

 

If we are playing a brand of football that is not producing results, its not necessarily a criticism of the progress after such a short spell.....more an observation.

 

The result and performance at Sunderland was great, but there is always a chance of that with us when we are gifted space, when we are denied space we are different altogether.

 

Tim Sherwood will know that and deal with it when he can.

Edited March 24, 2015 by TRO

[terrytini]

Yeah Swansea are a good side. Double over Mancs this year, recently won away at Soton and now a double over our mightyness.

It just doesnt matter whos in charge though, AVFC will always concede late goals that cost us points.

I think when you analyse the way we play, we are always susceptible to late goals....we are a very open team.

some of our fans like that they see it as exciting....as do Albion fans, watching Albion of course.

I find it a bit naive bordering on sloppy....the amount of times we give the ball away unforced is a concern imo, particularly when we play a team like Swansea who deny you space.

........under Sir Ron we went 1 goal up at home it was all over.

Yes but we were a top side then, and top sides can do it.

IMO it is folly for any side outside the top 6 to even contemplate shutting up shop, or attempting much in the way of game management.

It would work the same way game management works for the England cricket team !

For me, over the course of a season full on powerful attacking play, or attempts at it, will do the job, and unless we are at least 2 goals clear with 5 minutes to go, or 3 goals clear with ten, I'd prefer us to stay on the front foot at all times.

TT I agree, but we have been saying this for over 10 years. TS has only just come in so it will take time.....but only if we are on the right road( I hope we are)....with previous managers, we never was on the right road so time was never our bed friend.

Swansea, was never a top side, they have developed in to a very good side IMO.....Our side under RS was never a Top side we developed in to one, using modest buys.

My point is we have to learn and develop and make note of the teams that are currently better than us, its the learning and developing process.

If we are playing a brand of football that is not producing results, its not necessarily a criticism of the progress after such a short spell.....more an observation.

The result and performance at Sunderland was great, but there is always a chance of that with us when we are gifted space, when we are denied space we are different altogether.

Tim Sherwood will know that and deal with it when he can.

I don't particularly disagree with any of that but I do feel the differences between teams (always with the caveat ' outside the top six') is often exaggerated.

Take Swansea, who you - reasonably enough - refer to as a very good side. I know its its buts and maybes to some extent but if just the results in the two games between us were reversed wed be only one win behind them despite pretty much all of us agreeing wed had an awful season.

So if they are a very good side what are we !.......I personally have long felt it is much less to do with tactics as such and quality of players ( in as much as the quality difference between players of 14 sides is minimal overall) and more about having a method, sound coaching of that method, repeatability of it, and a manager who can motivate the players. Connected to this the Manager MUST have the ability to get the players that match exactly what he wants.

Then, to actually kick on, you need that bit of luck, and to have gotthe right manager at the right time (and ideally a find of a goal scorer like Shaw !).

You rightly mention Saunders who in my view fulfilled all these criteria at Villa, but never did so anywhere else (by not meeting the right man right time bit and by not ever bringing the players in he needed, and by not bringing those he had along with him)…. I always saw Peter Withe as an absolitely classic example of the right man for the idea rather than the highest quality for the position.

GT Mark 2 the same.

Edited March 24, 2015 by terrytini

[TRO]

 

 

 

 

Yeah Swansea are a good side. Double over Mancs this year, recently won away at Soton and now a double over our mightyness.

It just doesnt matter whos in charge though, AVFC will always concede late goals that cost us points.

I think when you analyse the way we play, we are always susceptible to late goals....we are a very open team.

some of our fans like that they see it as exciting....as do Albion fans, watching Albion of course.

I find it a bit naive bordering on sloppy....the amount of times we give the ball away unforced is a concern imo, particularly when we play a team like Swansea who deny you space.

........under Sir Ron we went 1 goal up at home it was all over.

Yes but we were a top side then, and top sides can do it.

IMO it is folly for any side outside the top 6 to even contemplate shutting up shop, or attempting much in the way of game management.

It would work the same way game management works for the England cricket team !

For me, over the course of a season full on powerful attacking play, or attempts at it, will do the job, and unless we are at least 2 goals clear with 5 minutes to go, or 3 goals clear with ten, I'd prefer us to stay on the front foot at all times.

TT I agree, but we have been saying this for over 10 years. TS has only just come in so it will take time.....but only if we are on the right road( I hope we are)....with previous managers, we never was on the right road so time was never our bed friend.

Swansea, was never a top side, they have developed in to a very good side IMO.....Our side under RS was never a Top side we developed in to one, using modest buys.

My point is we have to learn and develop and make note of the teams that are currently better than us, its the learning and developing process.

If we are playing a brand of football that is not producing results, its not necessarily a criticism of the progress after such a short spell.....more an observation.

The result and performance at Sunderland was great, but there is always a chance of that with us when we are gifted space, when we are denied space we are different altogether.

Tim Sherwood will know that and deal with it when he can.

I don't particularly disagree with any of that but I do feel the differences between teams (always with the caveat ' outside the top six') is often exaggerated.

Take Swansea, who you - reasonably enough - refer to as a very good side. I know its its buts and maybes to some extent but if just the results in the two games between us were reversed wed be only one win behind them despite pretty much all of us agreeing wed had an awful season.

So if they are a very good side what are we !.......I personally have long felt it is much less to do with tactics as such and quality of players ( in as much as the quality difference between players of 14 sides is minimal overall) and more about having a method, sound coaching of that method, repeatability of it, and a manager who can motivate the players. Connected to this the Manager MUST have the ability to get the players that match exactly what he wants.

Then, to actually kick on, you need that bit of luck, and to have gotthe right manager at the right time (and ideally a find of a goal scorer like Shaw !).

You rightly mention Saunders who in my view fulfilled all these criteria at Villa, but never did so anywhere else (by not meeting the right man right time bit and by not ever bringing the players in he needed, and by not bringing those he had along with him)…. I always saw Peter Withe as an absolitely classic example of the right man for the idea rather than the highest quality for the position.

GT Mark 2 the same.

 

 

There again find it hard to disagree with you.

 

but just an observation Tony Barton in particular and Roy McLaren were instrumental in helping Saunders and did not move with him when he left.....Just like Clough was not the same without Taylor.

[terrytini]

Very true.

Almost the earliest thing I can remember about football was my dad telling me Ted McDougal would be nothing without Bowyer, and Clough nothing without Taylor....Barton was certainly a crucial foil to Saunders.

Anyway wed best think of something else to debate, there is almost a full page of agreement on here !

[romavillan]

Well to throw a little disagreement in the mix, I really don't think we should go gung ho at united, free hit or not.

 

Remember the 8-0? We could really do without that seeing as we're building up some fragile confidence going into a series of games that coudl have big ramifications on our short and mid term future.

 

Normally I'm of the school that says losing 3 nil is better than losing 1-0 and not going out to try and win it. I just think in this case, with the QPR game being moved getting a mauling could be a big bow for us.

 

(The stuff about Barton and Saunders, Taylor and Clough though I'm 100% in agreement )

Edited March 26, 2015 by romavillan

[AVTuco]

Except that it's not ok to describe Peter Withe as anything but of the highest quality. Not right.

[terrytini]

Except that it's not ok to describe Peter Withe as anything but of the highest quality. Not right.

I thoroughly chastised myself with a severe beating immediately after posting...

[terrytini]

Well to throw a little disagreement in the mix, I really don't think we should go gung ho at united, free hit or not.

 

Remember the 8-0? We could really do without that seeing as we're building up some fragile confidence going into a series of games that coudl have big ramifications on our short and mid term future.

 

Normally I'm of the school that says losing 3 nil is better than losing 1-0 and not going out to try and win it. I just think in this case, with the QPR game being moved getting a mauling could be a big bow for us.

 

(The stuff about Barton and Saunders, Taylor and Clough though I'm 100% in agreement )

I take the point but my view is we all need to forget the 8-0 !!...In my view it had a massive effect on Lambo, and we suffered for it. We all now dread that 'gung-ho' means a walloping, but actually lots of sides from the lower reaches have attacked the top 6 and some have had success, with very few getting battered.

We unfortunately are scarred and I think it would reaffirm that if we tightened up significantly.

I would rather Sherwood sticks to his philosophy, hopefully gets the players believing in it, and then if we get beat three or four nil ( not so sure we would) but have given them a really good game it could exorcise that fear of that approach.

In any case I think he is right when he says we are much better suited to attack. I thought the problem against Swansea was not so much whether we were not tight enough as that the players took a whole half to be aggressive and attack minded.

[romavillan]

 

Well to throw a little disagreement in the mix, I really don't think we should go gung ho at united, free hit or not.

 

Remember the 8-0? We could really do without that seeing as we're building up some fragile confidence going into a series of games that coudl have big ramifications on our short and mid term future.

 

Normally I'm of the school that says losing 3 nil is better than losing 1-0 and not going out to try and win it. I just think in this case, with the QPR game being moved getting a mauling could be a big bow for us.

 

(The stuff about Barton and Saunders, Taylor and Clough though I'm 100% in agreement )

I take the point but my view is we all need to forget the 8-0 !!...In my view it had a massive effect on Lambo, and we suffered for it. We all now dread that 'gung-ho' means a walloping, but actually lots of sides from the lower reaches have attacked the top 6 and some have had success, with very few getting battered.

We unfortunately are scarred and I think it would reaffirm that if we tightened up significantly.

I would rather Sherwood sticks to his philosophy, hopefully gets the players believing in it, and then if we get beat three or four nil ( not so sure we would) but have given them a really good game it could exorcise that fear of that approach.

In any case I think he is right when he says we are much better suited to attack. I thought the problem against Swansea was not so much whether we were not tight enough as that the players took a whole half to be aggressive and attack minded.

 

 

I see what you're saying, but it might be better left until the group have had a preseason with Sherwood and we're out of the shit. 

 

I have no doubt the 8-0, well that run of 3 games had a huge effect on Lambert and the group and most probably was the reason why we had a problem committing men forward even when we had the ball, and the horrible 11 men back for corners rubbish etc. Thing is though this is the same group of players pretty much, it certainly contains no Sherwood signings anyway, so getting a caning really might burst our bubble at the worst time possible.

 

Yes he is right when he says we're better on the front foot, at least in terms of us moving the ball from back to front quickly to try and use the pace we have in the side. The problem against Swansea for me was we were a man light in the middle of the park, injuries meant we could play 3 at the back (not got 3 fit CBs) so I think we shoudl have played Benteke on his own up top and had an extra body in there (Gil/Grealish maybe to be really positive).

 

Who knows though ay, we might stuff them and go unbeaten from now till the FA Cup final