Steven Gerrard

[nick76]

9 minutes ago, Talldarkandransome said:

Thats a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Surprised Mcphee and Danks are staying. Gonna need a bigger technical area

He may want to assess them and make adjustment to his staff over time because they both and Culter have really good reputations.  I admire Gerrard for that because it means he's open to ideas and adjustments and not just chuck out the sink for the sake of it.

[StanBalaban]

14 minutes ago, It's Your Round said:

Danks and nanny MacPhee staying suggest they weren’t Dean’s recruits. Not sure how they’re going to fit in which Gerrards already well sized back room team. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see them leave in the summer, but stay on for the rest of the season. Can't be easy coming in and learning about your squad, reserves and youth team, whilst simultaneously hitting the ground running.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

41 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Why do you think that's stupid? It's arguably the most crucial skill of being a manager, spotting what's going wrong and fixing it with the right sub, understanding the ebb and flow of a game and knowing when to invigorate the right part of the pitch with fresh legs. 

I'm gobsmacked anyone would not consider this crucial, its about game management. 

Why do you think there was such a hoo-ha about the extra subs being allowed in lockdown because of the advantage it would give to clubs with deeper squads? 

I wouldn't say it's " THE MOST " crucial skill as a manager, but it's definitely a huge part of game management. I think you'll find for the most part, it's being downplayed due to whisper it ( It was often something used to slate Dean Smith ).

I reckon if most people take that part out of the equation, it's farcical to pretend as if it's not a huge part of a match.

" Fair play, he made the right subs at the right time, and they changed the game " wouldn't be a thing otherwise.

Things like not changing someone on the cusp of a red card or injury, or.pure fatigue, then the player getting sent off or conceding a goal due to it, happens.

Or if you are being dominated and it's clear something needs to change but isn't, and the inevitable happens ( Obviously making subs don't guarantee anything also )

Now, I'm not saying that is the only thing, another poster made a great point. About the many factors a manager has to consider before making a sub, his initial game.plan, state of subs, options etc. ( I think it might have been @Vive_La_Villa ). Now that doesn't mean we are right in calling for the subs exactly when we want them as fans either.

You're hoping that the managers initial tactical lineup / setup is good enough to not need panic subs anyway, however, it's definitely a vital component of game management.

Away from subs, is in game tweaking etc.

For some reason some posters think people's personalities are going to change, just because the manager has

I'm pretty sure most of us will remain unreasonable stuck in our ways!

Edited November 13, 2021 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[a m ole]

27 minutes ago, It's Your Round said:

Danks and nanny MacPhee staying suggest they weren’t Dean’s recruits. Not sure how they’re going to fit in which Gerrards already well sized back room team. 

Yep, which is really **** annoying. 

[DCJonah]

1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

I wouldn't say it's " THE MOST " crucial skill as a manager, but it's definitely a huge part of game management. I think you'll find for the most part, it's being downplayed due to whisper it ( It was often something used to slate Dean Smith ).

I reckon if most people take that part out of the equation, it's farcical to pretend as if it's not a huge part of a match.

" Fair play, he made the right subs at the right time, and they changed the game " wouldn't be a thing otherwise.

Things like not changing someone on the cusp of a red card or injury, or.pure fatigue, then the player getting sent off or conceding a goal due to it, happens.

Or if you are being dominated and it's clear something needs to change but isn't, and the inevitable happens ( Obviously making subs don't guarantee anything also )

Now, I'm not saying that is the only thing, another poster made a great point. About the many factors a manager has to consider before making a sub, his initial game.plan, state of subs, options etc. ( I think it might have been @Vive_La_Villa )

You're hoping that the managers initial tactical lineup / setup is good enough to not need panic subs anyway, however, it's definitely a vital component of game management.

Away from subs, is in game tweaking etc.

The problem with the whole fuss about subs, is that there's never any possibility the sub doesn't work when people are demanding change or moaning about changes that they wanted. It also depends on the quality you have on the bench.

It's always this fifa or FM attitude where changing a game is easy because you just switch players. 

It's an aspect of football management but way down the list in terms of being crucial. I can't imagine most top managers succeed because of the subs they make. Subs play their part but for me it's always been an aspect for fans who want to moan to cling on because its such an easy thing to shout in a match thread or from the stands. 

 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

1 minute ago, DCJonah said:

The problem with the whole fuss about subs, is that there's never any possibility the sub doesn't work when people are demanding change or moaning about changes that they wanted. It also depends on the quality you have on the bench.

It's always this fifa or FM attitude where changing a game is easy because you just switch players. 

It's an aspect of football management but way down the list in terms of being crucial. I can't imagine most top managers succeed because of the subs they make. Subs play their part but for me it's always been an aspect for fans who want to moan to cling on because its such an easy thing to shout in a match thread or from the stands. 

 

I edited and added to the post mate, to basically say that most of us are unreasonably stuck in our ways, and doesn't make us right by any stretch either. Lol

Edited November 13, 2021 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Why do you think that's stupid? It's arguably the most crucial skill of being a manager, spotting what's going wrong and fixing it with the right sub, understanding the ebb and flow of a game and knowing when to invigorate the right part of the pitch with fresh legs. 

I'm gobsmacked anyone would not consider this crucial, its about game management. 

Why do you think there was such a hoo-ha about the extra subs being allowed in lockdown because of the advantage it would give to clubs with deeper squads? 

I think it’s overstated as a skill. Most fans can normally see what changes are needed during a game. I personally think it’s a very small part of management. But that’s just my opinion. 

[hippo]

1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said:

They clearly believe that Gerrard is an upgrade. I get that some people disagree with this but I do not believe for 1 second that Purslow doesn't believe that Gerrard and his team is not an upgrade on Smith and his team

Of course they do. It seems he was there first choice and he hasn't come cheap.

Time will tell.

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

It would be hard to consider Gerrard an upgrade, I think Danny Mills is spot on and that's what I'm more surprised on. 

Dean Smith is a very good manager, whose gone through a very bad recent patch and a poor year but that doesnt devalue that he is a very good manager. 

Gerrard is still fairly new to management really, has not managed at this level and a lot of the aura around Gerrard is because of his playing career and attitude.  That may translate really well to management and we've seen glimpses of that at Rangers but rightly Mills also puts some context around that in the article. 

Bringing his team with him is very very important especially it seems Beale. 

Is Gerrard an upgrade on Smith? that's the risk CP and the owners have taken and believe in and we now will back 100% as fans but it is a gamble, lets hope it pays off because if it does, with his name, we could be going places.

Deans done great for us but a 10 month bad patch culminating in 5 defeats is only going to end one way. If it was any other manager I’d doubt you’d be singing their praises. 
 

SG is an up and coming manager so it’s hardly surprising his route involves a league quality up grade. The advantage of coming from Rangers is that they’re a huge club and so that offers a different type of experience than a manager who has perhaps come from a smaller club playing in the Championship.
 

Rangers are a big club on the up, coming back from the brink of disaster.  Their progress  largely thanks to him it seems. The similarities to us won’t have been lost on the board. 

[hippo]

Some breaking news (or maybe not) - that he has a release clause in contract - in 2024 allowing to be free from his contact for a defined amount.

No real problem with that. But what happens if we start getting approaches from Liverpool for some of our players in say late 2023 ? 

I assume there will some protections in there. For example  if Martinez declines a new deal , and then signs for Liverpool and Gerrard follows him there six months later ?

Same with some of our promising youth players.

 

[Peter Griffin]

15 minutes ago, hippo said:

Of course they do. It seems he was there first choice and he hasn't come cheap.

Time will tell.

Yes, he clearly appears to be their first choice. It is encouraging that NSWE and CP are prepared to invest so heavily in the coaching team. It would have been expensive to sack, Dean, then circa 4m to Rangers, 5m a year to Gerrard and the backroom team won't have come cheap. This is the sort of intent I was hoping to see from the club. It is great to see it happen

[Peter Griffin]

2 minutes ago, hippo said:

Some breaking news (or maybe not) - that he has a release clause in contract - in 2024 allowing to be free from his contact for a defined amount.

No real problem with that. But what happens if we start getting approaches from Liverpool for some of our players in say late 2023 ? 

I assume there will some protections in there. For example  if Martinez declines a new deal , and then signs for Liverpool and Gerrard follows him there six months later ?

Same with some of our promising youth players.

 

There is nothing stopping any club from making bids for our players in any transfer window, just like there is nothing stopping us making bids for players from any other club. If any club wants to buy a Villa player they meet our financial valuation or the players stays at Villa

[Adam2003]

1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said:

They clearly believe that Gerrard is an upgrade. I get that some people disagree with this but I do not believe for 1 second that Purslow doesn't believe that Gerrard and his team is not an upgrade on Smith and his team

Ok I’m going to bow out of this conversation now because it started when I responded to you saying “Not one pundit said that Gerrard would be an upgrade on Smith” so I’m just getting really confused. Sorry if I am being dense.

[sheepyvillian]

On 12/11/2021 at 09:09, hippo said:

National Coaches.

I was just saying what the radio broadcast. 

Of course we were in full party mode. But fans were getting disgruntled about the lack of coverage.

C- Crew ?

[Vive_La_Villa]

14 minutes ago, hippo said:

Some breaking news (or maybe not) - that he has a release clause in contract - in 2024 allowing to be free from his contact for a defined amount.

No real problem with that. But what happens if we start getting approaches from Liverpool for some of our players in say late 2023 ? 

I assume there will some protections in there. For example  if Martinez declines a new deal , and then signs for Liverpool and Gerrard follows him there six months later ?

Same with some of our promising youth players.

 

It’s possible. But something to worry about in a few years. A lot can happen.

[Adam2003]

17 minutes ago, hippo said:

Some breaking news (or maybe not) - that he has a release clause in contract - in 2024 allowing to be free from his contact for a defined amount.

No real problem with that. But what happens if we start getting approaches from Liverpool for some of our players in say late 2023 ? 

I assume there will some protections in there. For example  if Martinez declines a new deal , and then signs for Liverpool and Gerrard follows him there six months later ?

Same with some of our promising youth players.

 

It’s very unlikely that both Steven Gerrard and Emi Martinez will be with us in late 2023. One of them, sure, but the laws of football suggest we will see pretty high turnover of players over four transfer windows between now and then, and the average PL manager last 18 months. Not one to worry about.

[TRO]

12 hours ago, Jas10 said:

So his personality? Just that?

Rather than his ability and achievements as a manager?

I see what you’re saying (he displayed it in his playing career for sure) I just don’t think it automatically means he is going to be highly successful as a manager…

More of a feeling than anything?

Ok… it’s certainly not a poor reason but still doesn’t provide any assurance for me. He definitely has those traits though, of that there is no doubt. It’s whether he can transfer that to our players… and that (along with getting results and quality performances) depends much more on his skill and ability as a manager, although the personality can certainly aid that…

Just to give one example of it not working out or transferring, Roy Keane would be described and viewed similarly. (Not a fan personally, Gerrard is a far superior player and less of a nasty piece of work imo). But he has been a disaster as either a coach or manager. He certainly had no positive impact when he came in to assist Lambert here either..

Gary Neville? There’re plenty of examples really, home and abroad.

Some have been very successful too, not overlooking that.

Not saying that it’s going to be anything like that for him here and it’s true that his achievements at Rangers do have some worth… just pointing out that perceived strong characters or personalities are not necessarily a success when it comes to operating in a different field/position.

I do hope he will lift and boost the players, inspire them, bring some discipline and higher standards… that would be excellent.

But it’s all a big IF atm.

Maybe this is the shakeup we needed… again, I hope so.

Cheers.

His 65% win ratio at Ibrox is not to be sniffed at or his transformation of a punished club, as his fledgling opportunity in to management....He has shown his ability to blend players in to a unit, by his record on the European circuit.

I say again, and will keep on saying, there is not a manager out there, that can guarantee success, for us, so I don't see the rationale of why its mentioned.

Perhaps many fans don't rate personality, I rate it very highly and it is also endorsed by our outgoing manager, when he says "a team mirrors the manager"...it can't be said much clearer....folk either buy in to that, or they don't.

Sure there are examples of it not working,with other characters with some of Steves traits, thats why nothing is nailed on....Me, I believe it will.

If its negatives to look for, it might be his longevity with us, because if he does well over the next 2 years, we might be hard pressed to hang on to him...a lot of that depends on us and how we engage with him. It could also be that in such circumstances, Michael Beale could be attracted to the job, and by that time he might be ready to be his own boss....by all accounts he seems to be a huge, element in SG's success.

I think it has proved hard for us to make that step up in to the top 10 of the league, this might just be the leg up, we have needed, only time will tell....I still believe that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.....We have a box office name in our managers role, lets embrace it and use it to our own advantage, if Steve goes in  2 years say, we should in theory, be in a much stronger position to be punching our new found weight.

I really don't quite understand the Ibrox thing, its one of the hardest gig's in football....No room for excuses or sub standard performances, its win from day one....You have to win the league, thats the measure, the pressure must be intense, for your first job that must say a lot of the character of our new guy.

I see only good stuff with this, sorry, if at this stage, I can't give you any Guarantee's.

Edited November 13, 2021 by TRO

[TRO]

12 hours ago, Jas10 said:

What is it exactly that has you delighted? Or so confident?

Please continue and enjoy it, I just can’t garner that feeling for myself.

I hope you’re spot on TRO.

I was only wrong once in my life.....and then it came to pass, I was right anyway.

[Delphinho123]

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

The problem with the whole fuss about subs, is that there's never any possibility the sub doesn't work when people are demanding change or moaning about changes that they wanted. It also depends on the quality you have on the bench.

It's always this fifa or FM attitude where changing a game is easy because you just switch players. 

It's an aspect of football management but way down the list in terms of being crucial. I can't imagine most top managers succeed because of the subs they make. Subs play their part but for me it's always been an aspect for fans who want to moan to cling on because its such an easy thing to shout in a match thread or from the stands. 

 

I respectfully disagree. Subs can change games. Italy vs. England in the Euro’s case and point. Had Southgate made changes earlier and tried to wrestle back control of the game at 1-0, we’d have won the game. Instead, he did nothing. 

Another great example is when Leeds came to VP and beat us 3-0. I think Bielsa made a change 30 minutes in because it wasn’t working. 

Too often managers just allow games to pass them by and wait until 65 minutes to change things. Why is that? Why can you only make changes after 60 mins? If it isn’t working, change it at half time. Shake it up a bit. Smith was poor with his substitutions for the most part and I think it cost him points at vital times. 

[Adam2003]

2 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Too often managers just allow games to pass them by and wait until 65 minutes to change things. Why is that? Why can you only make changes after 60 mins? If it isn’t working, change it at half time. Shake it up a bit. Smith was poor with his substitutions for the most part and I think it cost him points at vital times. 

This is an offshoot of moneyball/bad data use. The stats show subs made in the 61st and 71st minutes have the most impact on games. Therefore managers now all think they must make subs in those minutes. A misunderstanding of causation.