CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 No, never go back! A general rule for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDrums Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 No, never go back! A general rule for life. If it works with bitches it must be true for football managers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Depends, If this is on the hypothetical grounds of anyone but McLeish. On those grounds i would welcome Steve Bruce or even Gary Megson. Thats the caliber of manager we have at moment - one worse than Gary Megson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Without a doubt YES !! Ok he spent a fortune but he built a great team that was inches away from glory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 No. He spent a lot of money with us, squandered a lot, but he got a simple, effective (if limited) system working pretty well here. So many managers can't even manage that, even with backing. I think he is an above average manager, but not brilliant. I would like to give a chance to an up-and-coming manager in future, names like Lambert, Poyet and Rodgers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 No bloody way. It would be a massive insult what with how he **** us over. Not only that but I don't rate him that highly anyway. He's better than McLeish but name me someone who isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Yep it's a pointless question really He's a very good manager, no question and he's managing big clubs, Celtic, Sunderland and Villa (in that order) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 He's better than McLeish but name me someone who isn't? Steve Kean is genuinely the only manager currently in the Premiership i can think of who might be worse than McLeish. Thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted December 2, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 2, 2011 Without a doubt YES !! Ok he spent a fortune but he built a great team that was inches away from glory correction, we were a striker away from glory. we were calling for a darren bent for the entire time he was manager. we were set for the champions league and all we needed was a goal scorer to secure it. arsenal bought arshavin...MON bought heskey. nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Yep it's a pointless question really He's a very good manager, no question and he's managing big clubs, Celtic, Sunderland and Villa (in that order)Are you a Sunderland fan in disguise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Without a doubt YES !! Ok he spent a fortune but he built a great team that was inches away from glory correction, we were a striker away from glory. we were calling for a darren bent for the entire time he was manager. we were set for the champions league and all we needed was a goal scorer to secure it. arsenal bought arshavin...MON bought heskey. nuff said. Well we didn't make any decent funds available that January. Arshavin cost £15 million Heskey cost £3 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Villa are much bigger than Sunderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Exactly blame Lerner for that, when we needed a Bent/Defoe to finish the jigsaw, RL pulled the plug (possibly as he was getting rinsed in a divorce about then) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Heskey is hardly the best option at £3m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Answer to question...... NO FECKIN WAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Agree, but who else of his pedigree was there at that time for that money ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 No, definitely not. Mediocre manager with some fatal flaws. He's lucky to get the Sunderland job in all honesty. I think to have this opinion you have to over rate the impact a manger can have in the modern game. I think the clubs infastructure is by far the most important factor. As a Villa fan to not rate MON surely you have to think he didn't take the club as far as other managers could given the restrictions placed on them by the infastructure of the club. I'm sure you could list numerous things MON did badly, but the same could be said of Pep at Barca or Mourinho at Real. No manager is perfect but the set up of certain clubs allows for the manager to make many mistakes and still have success, whilst other jobs are less forgiving. Given the circumstances MON worked in when at Villa, I'd say 3 6th place finishes were pretty good. Had Mourinho taken over at the same time do you really think he'd have done any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Heskey is hardly the best option at £3m. In hindsight no it wasn't . At the time Carew was injured and the idea was he would be foil for Gabby. It didn't work as we know. But who else was around for that sort of money? It was a mistake no doubt, But reason Arsenal finished above us was they signed a quality player for £15 million as we didn't. Then our team was dismantled after that bit by bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 No, definitely not. Mediocre manager with some fatal flaws. He's lucky to get the Sunderland job in all honesty. I think to have this opinion you have to over rate the impact a manger can have in the modern game. I think the clubs infastructure is by far the most important factor. As a Villa fan to not rate MON surely you have to think he didn't take the club as far as other managers could given the restrictions placed on them by the infastructure of the club. I'm sure you could list numerous things MON did badly, but the same could be said of Pep at Barca or Mourinho at Real. No manager is perfect but the set up of certain clubs allows for the manager to make many mistakes and still have success, whilst other jobs are less forgiving. Given the circumstances MON worked in when at Villa, I'd say 3 6th place finishes were pretty good. Had Mourinho taken over at the same time do you really think he'd have done any better?Yes, I do think other managers could've taken us further. The thing is though, Mourinho wouldn't have spunked so much money on medicore British players and I doubt he would've relied on such a small core of players either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts