Steven Gerrard

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I mean, whilst we at times criticise his tactical naivety, the fact that he has brought good players in to address the areas we all knew needed addressing suggests he's not tactically clueless, right? 

There have been times when I've wondered that about some of his predecessors. 

 

 

I have never been big on "tactics"....I think it can be over stated....and I think plenty of other things deserve, equal consideration.

Thats not to say, I dismiss them, out of hand or poo poo them in any way, I just think thay can be an easy go to, criticism...when other things are at play too.

Many factors, affect games and Tactics are just one of many.

I don't think realistically any professional manager, could survive, with being clueless on tactics.....what I do think is....some are more in to it than others, in terms of their belief in the effect, of tactics.

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

I have never been big on "tactics"....I think it can be over stated....and I think plenty of other things deserve, equal consideration.

Thats not to say, I dismiss them, out of hand or poo poo them in any way, I just think thay can be an easy go to, criticism...when other things are at play too.

Many factors, affect games and Tactics are just one of many.

I don't think realistically any professional manager, could survive, with being clueless on tactics.....what I do think is....some are more in to it than others, in terms of their belief in the effect, of tactics.

 

100% agree with this. You could have the best tactics in the world but if players aren’t giving their all or making silly errors you’ll lose games.  On the other hand as you mentioned no current manager in the Premier League will be ‘clueless’ on tactics. 
 

Also don’t even start me off on substitutions.

[Hobsons Choice]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

I have never been big on "tactics"....I think it can be over stated....and I think plenty of other things deserve, equal consideration.

Thats not to say, I dismiss them, out of hand or poo poo them in any way, I just think thay can be an easy go to, criticism...when other things are at play too.

Many factors, affect games and Tactics are just one of many.

I don't think realistically any professional manager, could survive, with being clueless on tactics.....what I do think is....some are more in to it than others, in terms of their belief in the effect, of tactics.

 

I'm perhaps a little more hot on it than you, but I see your point, and agree that it's by no means a magic bullet. For me it just boils down to making sure that the right players are in the right place at the right time, enabling their personal characteristics to be utilised. Sometimes their personal characteristics are lacking, and that too is another side of the game.  

It kind of reminds me when I first 'got' American Football. When I first realised that the ball is just a marker, and the game is really about territory. Gaining and holding ground. 

Football is to some degree the same, it's about space,  and time. If your tactics win your players space and time in the right areas, the football stuff kind of looks after itself. 

[DaveAV1]

14 hours ago, Adam2003 said:

as I am yet to see too many signs that he is bringing anything special to the mix on the pitch (beyond attracting big-name players which he is doing very well at).

This is not a dig at you at all, but I think attracting players is much bigger than we appreciate. The clubs that consistently do well, consistently sign the best players. Yes they also spend the most money but we have lots of money. FFP is restrictive but it is what it is, hiring Purslow, one of the architects of FFP was a master stroke. 
 

Coaching is of course important but clubs have armies of coaches now for all sorts of things. The head coach or manager oversees the big picture, strategy, style of play etc. 
 

The one consistent factor is that the better players you have the better you do. Coaching world class players may have its problems, but essentially you’re using the best materials to build the best product. 
 

Pep gets all the plaudits as a coach but perhaps his greatest ability is to attract the best players, Klopp similarly. As I say, money helps but the pulling power of the manager is a major factor. 
 

NSWE recognised this and at the same time realised that being able to get a Pep or Klopp was beyond us at this point in the journey. Clubs in a much better position than us, for various reasons, have struggled at some point to get a top, high profile manager. Man U, Spurs until they finally appointed Conte, Newcastle  with limitless wealth. 
 

Gerrard’s biggest fan, even the man himself, wouldn’t claim he was a great coach. Perhaps one day but certainly not now. Perhaps we could have appointed an Eddie Howe or a Graham Potter but the appointment of Steven Gerrard, instantly raised our profile a huge amount. Suddenly we’re not Dean Smith’s recently promoted, struggling Aston Villa. We’re Steven Gerrard’s Aston Villa with all the high profile that comes with it. Yes it’s annoying and the constant links to Liverpool are similarly gut wrenching but I believe NSWE can live with that and so should we, for all the pluses that his high profile brings us. That includes commercial opportunities that we wouldn’t have been able to get with Dean and of course most importantly his ability to attract players too. 
 

NSWE understand that if you don’t make consistent progress you soon stagnate and get left behind. We needed a boost to make a big leap forward. Perhaps SG was our cheat card that enabled us to gain profile quickly and so far it’s worked very well. 

[TRO]

11 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

I'm perhaps a little more hot on it than you, but I see your point, and agree that it's by no means a magic bullet. For me it just boils down to making sure that the right players are in the right place at the right time, enabling their personal characteristics to be utilised. Sometimes their personal characteristics are lacking, and that too is another side of the game.  

It kind of reminds me when I first 'got' American Football. When I first realised that the ball is just a marker, and the game is really about territory. Gaining and holding ground. 

Football is to some degree the same, it's about space,  and time. If your tactics win your players space and time in the right areas, the football stuff kind of looks after itself. 

I agree....but players have to make decisions, and there lies another reliance we have to factor in.

The game is dynamic, not static.......so while tactics are a starting point, the game evolves and relies on a players interpretation of the tactics employed.

With overloads and underloads, the game moves around and tactics can be morphed.

as you allude to....good players impose themselves on a game, that too is a huge factor for me.

as an example.....I don't remember Ron Saunders being explicity blessed with Tactical knowledge or Bill Shankly.

Edited June 30, 2022 by TRO

[Hobsons Choice]

6 minutes ago, TRO said:

I agree....but players have to make decisions, and there lies another reliance we have to factor in.

The game is dynamic, not static.......so while tactics are a starting point, the game evolves and relies on a players interpretation of the tactics employed.

With overloads and underloads, the game moves around and tactics can be morphed.

as you allude to....good players impose themselves on a game, that too is a huge factor for me.

It's a continuum, innit.

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

It's a continuum, innit.

precisely.

[sne]

1 minute ago, HKP90 said:

It's a continuum, innit.

Yeah, don't think I've ever met anyone who claimed that one is 100% deciding and the other totally unimportant. Would be utterly ridiculous.

Could absolutely discuss the balance between it of course. There is also the aspect of what players you have to utilize. No real point playing a tactically complex system if the players are not bright enough ot tactically skilled enough to execute it. Just like there is no point in playing a gung ho physical dump and chase hoofball with tiny technical players,.

Adjust to what you have and find how to get the best out of that. A lot of managers are quite poor at that.

 

[Hobsons Choice]

1 minute ago, sne said:

Yeah, don't think I've ever met anyone who claimed that one is 100% deciding and the other totally unimportant. Would be utterly ridiculous.

Could absolutely discuss the balance between it of course. There is also the aspect of what players you have to utilize. No real point playing a tactically complex system if the players are not bright enough ot tactically skilled enough to execute it. Just like there is no point in playing a gung ho physical dump and chase hoofball with tiny technical players,.

Adjust to what you have and find how to get the best out of that. A lot of managers are quite poor at that.

 

Yeah, tactics can on a given day allow a rubbish team to win, or a good team to lose, but ultimately the strength of players will tell. I do think that in a game of fine margins though, tactics are pretty important. They can make a good team brilliant. 

[sne]

Just now, HKP90 said:

Yeah, tactics can on a given day allow a rubbish team to win, or a good team to lose, but ultimately the strength of players will tell. I do think that in a game of fine margins though, tactics are pretty important. They can make a good team brilliant. 

Absolutely. I'm very much in the tactics are very important camp.

[Adam2003]

30 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

This is not a dig at you at all, but I think attracting players is much bigger than we appreciate. The clubs that consistently do well, consistently sign the best players. Yes they also spend the most money but we have lots of money. FFP is restrictive but it is what it is, hiring Purslow, one of the architects of FFP was a master stroke. 
 

Coaching is of course important but clubs have armies of coaches now for all sorts of things. The head coach or manager oversees the big picture, strategy, style of play etc. 

Just quoting this bit as your post was long so it’d take up a lot of space, but in response to all of it - yes I agree for sure on a lot of that. The ‘cheat code’ is just a bit of a gamble, I hope they are right, but I couldn’t agree more about the quality of players being crucial. My one point about on the field relates to your point here (overseeing strategy, style of play etc) and that’s where I was saying in my last post I haven’t seen that shift effectively enough yet but hope that pre-season means it does. Anyway I certainly agree he’s a perfectly decent manager bringing in very good players, and that’s a good place to be - I just think at this point it’s likely to result in another midtable season (which actually, for me, is fine because I haven’t forgotten how painful it was when we were circling the drain - if it takes time to build back up that’s fine because I think Smith brought us up, established us and then had that great start to the second season which we didn’t have the depth to sustain - so we need to make that top half place ‘the norm’).

Anyway thought your post absolutely made a lot of sense and fingers are crossed we see the results on the pitch.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Adam2003

[Adam2003]

36 minutes ago, TRO said:

I have never been big on "tactics"....I think it can be over stated....and I think plenty of other things deserve, equal consideration.

Thats not to say, I dismiss them, out of hand or poo poo them in any way, I just think thay can be an easy go to, criticism...when other things are at play too.

Many factors, affect games and Tactics are just one of many.

I don't think realistically any professional manager, could survive, with being clueless on tactics.....what I do think is....some are more in to it than others, in terms of their belief in the effect, of tactics.

 

It’s simple for me - a manager good enough at the tactical side makes each player better and ideally a team overall better than the sum of its parts. But obviously no mechanic can build a Ferrari with the parts that make up a bicycle - you need the ‘raw materials’ of quality players.

[TRO]

8 hours ago, HKP90 said:

I mean, whilst we at times criticise his tactical naivety, the fact that he has brought good players in to address the areas we all knew needed addressing suggests he's not tactically clueless, right? 

There have been times when I've wondered that about some of his predecessors. 

 

 

SG is the face of the football team....He has a plethora of tasks to conquer, thats why experience is what he is gaining, incrementally....but he has to delegate so much and monitor progress

The first team, is a huge responsibilty, but its just an element of his job.

I would suspect, it was paramount why a good coach like Beale was replaced with haste.

I think many of us would be surprised how little top grade managers, would have with the day to day coaching of the team.....They set the policy, and the structure and subordinates carry it out.

These top clubs managers now, have too many things going on for them to be involved with too much finite detail, they leave that to staff.....They will implement processes, monitoring and formulate conclusions, reports and so on.

Edited June 30, 2022 by TRO

[Adam2003]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

I love him as a person, his desire as a footballer and dragging that Liverpool team by his attitude in the pitch and his sheer footballing talent.  

I love quality talent of other teams because it’s great to watch.  Just like in life, there are amazing people who are technically brilliant but doesn’t always translate into being a great manager whether of a football team, a tech company or a small team of employees.  

I hope that isn’t the case with Gerrard, I hope his managerial skills are as good as his playing skills, we’ll just have to wait and see, and really hope that’s the case.  None of us know, we just either “believe” or “hope”.  I’m hopeful for next season.

This last part sums it up for me - I’m ‘hope’ not ‘believe’. I doubt too many people really hope he does badly - even if they say they don’t like him, as Villa fans they would take the success if it comes

[Vive_La_Villa]

26 minutes ago, sne said:

Yeah, don't think I've ever met anyone who claimed that one is 100% deciding and the other totally unimportant. Would be utterly ridiculous.

Could absolutely discuss the balance between it of course. There is also the aspect of what players you have to utilize. No real point playing a tactically complex system if the players are not bright enough ot tactically skilled enough to execute it. Just like there is no point in playing a gung ho physical dump and chase hoofball with tiny technical players,.

Adjust to what you have and find how to get the best out of that. A lot of managers are quite poor at that.

 

Adjust to what you have or play the way you want to but give it time and also slowly replace the players that clearly can’t do it?

Lambert tried to play an expansive way at the start but eventually realised we’d be going down if he didn’t shut up shop and hit on the break. 

We have a lot better quality of player now so Gerrard should persist in with he’s trying to do.  It takes time.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Vive_La_Villa

[TRO]

12 minutes ago, Adam2003 said:

This last part sums it up for me - I’m ‘hope’ not ‘believe’. I doubt too many people really hope he does badly - even if they say they don’t like him, as Villa fans they would take the success if it comes

I believe, FWIW.

[Hobsons Choice]

14 minutes ago, TRO said:

SG is the face of the football team....He has a plethora of tasks to conquer, thats why experience is what he is learning....but he has to delegate so much.

The first team, is a huge responsibilty, but its just an element of his job.

I would suspect, it was paramount why a good coach like Beale was replaced with haste.

I think many of us would be surprised how little top grade managers, would have with the day to day coaching of the team.....They set the policy, and the structure and subordinates carry it out.

These top clubs managers now, have too many things going on for them to be involved with too much finite detail, they leave that to staff.....They will implement processes, monitoring and conclusions, reports and so on.

As they should. Seldom do good managers micromanage in almost any business. It's about building and retaining a good team. That's what management is all about really.  

[sne]

31 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Adjust to what you have or play the way you want to but give it time and also slowly replace the players that clearly can’t do it?

Lambert tried to play an expansive way at the start but eventually realised we’d be going down if he didn’t shut up shop and hit on the break. 

We have a lot better quality of player now so Gerrard should persist in with he’s trying to do.  It takes time.

Sure, again it's a balance. No manager, even one loved by the board is going to get unlimited time to get it right. Even if it's a "project" there also needs to be results. Generally speaking.

As for our situation I think it's going OK, not bad not great. At Rangers Gerrard signed something like 37 (was it?) players in the years he was there and they finally won a title. With the money involved at our level we ain't going to sign that many so we gotta get it right with fewer signings and much faster.

See no reason why Gerrard should move away from the football he want's to play, but I absolutely thing there will be some adjustments so that we are less open when we lose the ball and most importantly that we learn to keep the ball better and get the ball to the guys we want to have it. Mings should no be the playmaker and so on.

[Vive_La_Villa]

12 minutes ago, sne said:

Sure, again it's a balance. No manager, even one loved by the board is going to get unlimited time to get it right. Even if it's a "project" there also needs to be results. Generally speaking.

As for our situation I think it's going OK, not bad not great. At Rangers Gerrard signed something like 37 (was it?) players in the years he was there and they finally won a title. With the money involved at our level we ain't going to sign that many so we gotta get it right with fewer signings and much faster.

See no reason why Gerrard should move away from the football he want's to play, but I absolutely thing there will be some adjustments so that we are less open when we lose the ball and most importantly that we learn to keep the ball better and get the ball to the guys we want to have it. Mings should no be the playmaker and so on.

Good post. You’re right in terms of the time he will have. Our owners seem pretty fair with the time and support they’ll give a manager as was shown with Smith.  Last season was almost a free hit for Gerrard.  This season he’ll need to show a lot of improvement.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Vive_La_Villa

[blandy]

4 hours ago, HKP90 said:

OK, let me rephrase. If you want Villa to lose because you hate someone in charge, then you can bugger off. (Not you per se as I know you were only saying you understood the logic). 

The key part of this is the 'wanting Villa to lose'.

I'm not in that camp, but I think you're being a bit black and white over this alleged view on Steven Gerrard. I mean if you go back, say, 4+ years and Tony Xia and Steve Bruce, (bear with me) if a hypothetical fan had back then said that they would like to see Villa lose the Play-off final against Fulham, or the season before say I don't want Bruce to take us up, because we're a mess, and we need to see the back of him/ them, you'd be hard-pressed today to say that they were wrong, or they didn't ultimately want the same thing for Villa - for the club to thrive and they didn't think it would under Xia/Bruce.

So there's the short term and the long term view. If, and it is a big if, someone wants Villa to lose a lot next season because they don't like Gerrard, then that would be very much a tiny minority view, and frankly daft. But I don't think we're at that situation anyway. I think a small number of people don't rate SG at all, a larger number are sceptical, but really hope he does well and proves their doubts ill-founded - that group would include me, but I really do wish him all the best and quite like the bloke as a person/manager, from a distance), and then there are the largest group who (apparently) just are positive, because he's our manager. Which is also fine.