John_Lerwill

Ha ha ha. Sounds about right. ('See no point' or unwilling and unable? I know where my virtual money is) I don't like what you have written but be most assured you haven't 'upset' me, Mr Lerwill. Don't try to be clever ... just take what I've said at face value. Nothing else is to be taken from what I have said. Finito.

Thank you for the good wishes. Not sure what it has to do with the price of a cup of tea, though. Your claim still appears to me to be absolute cobblers. Would you care to try and explain why? Probably not, I dare say. Too tough. No, it's just that I see no point. If you don't like what I've written then I am sorry that I have upset you.

I don't actually think it would be possible to give us worse performances and results at the moment. All right, suppose they were no better ... what would therefore be the purpose of GH's (imagined) exit?

Sadly enough I agree. I feel a conspiracy theory coming along. Plenty of people agreeing ... including that bit at the end implying that (all) those there were chanting that chant?

Absolute cobblers. ... Oh, dear. Have a Happy New Year - please. You weren't inferring anything (see Sharpe's Wilt). Implying that positive action will necessarily produce positive results is wrong. Yes. As that is you predicting what the future will be if the course of action you put forward is taken. Hoping that it [positive action] will [produce positive results] is not a problem. Again, wrong interpretations/mis-reading I'm afraid.

You can see nothing of the sort. Unfortunately for me, I've read your 'article' and your other bits of cheerleading and instruction to people. I'm sorry that you don't take criticism very well (I suppose few of us do, really) but if you're going to make claims, assumptions about the future and predictions about what is the only path to be travelled then expect to have some people disagree and point out what they dislike about what you say. Well it appears that what you accuse me of, you're also quilty! There's no "instruction" from me ... only "encouragement" - just like some others on VT. And I get people who are opposed to my point of view and others who are not. Just like some others on VT. And regarding your tendency to mis-read, nowhere have I given predictions except to infer that positive action will produce positive results. And that's wrong, is it?

Houllier is part of the club at the minute though and whilst the board are publically showing no signs of going back on his appointment we have to make best the situation at hand. That situation is Houllier is the manager of our team and the manager / team being subject to that vitriol can only make the situation worse. The best we can hope for is showing some solidarity / support and by some miracle Houllier pulls us through, surely that is better than the other option? Spot on.

I don't think he's getting sacked (so that's one assumption you've got wrong). I think that Lerner and Faulkner wouldn't have an earthly what to do if they did sack him, tbh. 'About 3 people'? What the hell are you going on about? Have you been around canvassing? Been knocking on people's doors? Or are you making it up, eh? Explanation not necessary. :winkold: Because if the people at the game wish to show their dissatisfaction with the performances, with Houllier, with the players, &c. then they should choose how they wish to do it and they shouldn't listen to you telling them that it isn't the only constructive option. As with your 'article' you make many assumptions about the future in order to come to your conclusion. Not allowing for those assumptions to be wrong is utterly foolish. Well, I can see you are a member of Richard's cohort! ... A tendency to mis-read!

Just what basis do you have for stating that, Richard? I cannot see that the Villa management have that option in mind, and, if they have, then to leave the manager's chair improperly filled at such a juncture would not be an improvement to the situation. GH has only been able to select from a near-fit senior squad in the last 2 games ... one of which saw a highly acceptable result at Chelsea. Luke Young remains unfit however, as does Delph. And Carew? the least said about that the better.. GH will be here at least till the summer i.m.o.

Nonsense. If you think that, snowychap, then you're one of about 3 people that doesn't realise that GH is not getting sacked. If he's there and staying, what's the point of booing or shouting vitriol at him (which can affect the whole team)? Agreed, there is another option - to just keep quiet.

It's pretty clear that GH is here ... and staying. So it's pretty useless to talk about alternatives. As has already been proposed, the only constructive option is now for all supporters to give him their backing.

Yes, I agree that Curbs might have had Villa in midtable now, but how much further could he have taken the club? I have me doots. Back in September, if someone were to suggest that Villa would be in a relegation position by January, I don't think anyone would have believed them. In my view, GH is a better medium-term option (to set up the base for the future), but maybe he was not quite practical enough to visualise the need for now. He now faces a huge challenge.

In the context that Houllier was probably the only prominent applicant on the shortlist then what what would anyone else have done?

The key is that its in those 15 games that Villa need to get their points. That's a potential 45 points.

That's a good point, but once teams get into a poor run, it all tends to happen like that ... the team has lost its way. However, how it came to do that after Chelsea, I don't know! That is not to say the team can't re-find its way, but it's going to take some flippin' good coaching to get 'em back on a winning keel.

I am mostly blaming situations that were foisted on GH one way or another. Yes, there seemed to be some things awry last night, I agree. But last Sunday everything was pretty good, wasn't it (apart from conceding the 2 goals in the last 10 mins of proper time)? GH seemed to have that one about right, and I would hope he learns from last night's slips.

That last comment puzzles me a bit. Take last night's defeat as an example. Why can that not be "put at Houllier's door" and who should be blamed instead, and on what grounds? The manager has little control once players go out onto the pitch ... if Heskey chooses to be silly, that's hardly the manager's fault. I did not say that GH has not made *any* mistakes ... but coming in when he did and amassing the injury list he did can hardly cause the lumping of all blame on him.

With 17 matches still to run (= potential 51 points), there is plenty of time still to run. However, we all know that team confidence is a big thing, and with whatever was achieved at Chelsea being eradicated by last night's play, everyone is nervous. Backing the manager is the only route though. Nearly all of what has transpired can hardly be put at GH's door ... though there are a lot who would like to do that.

With 17 matches still to run (= potential 51 points), there is plenty of time still to run. However, we all know that team confidence is a big thing, and with whatever was achieved at Chelsea being eradicated by last night's play, everyone is nervous. Backing the manager is the only route though. Nearly all of what has transpired can hardly be put at GH's door ... though there are a lot who would like to do that.

Far too early to say that. You may as well say the 4-0 at money citeh was the defining moment I stated "perhaps", Richard! :?

There speaks another great sportsman! 8) Yes, I'm mostly an armchair supporter these days and therefore it's probably easier for me to look on and give views; when you experience the emotion (and cost!) on a match-by-match basis then you do feel it, and in a big way.

Well IMO he didn't inherit a squad that should be in a relegation battle, losing games with no fight and having the worst goal difference in the league. I except it was a perfect scenario he was coming into but IMO nothing justified what's been shown so far under houllier. The Chelsea game showed fight and passion and for the first time we got something out of a game when we went behind. It's a start but that's all it is, he still has a long way to show he's the right man to progress this club, randy and the general said our ambitions are the same then Houllier needs to show he can get us challenging for those ambitions. GH's "inheritence", BigJohn, was hit by a serious flow of injuries. That's been the main issue of the past few months. The Chelsea result is a "start", yes, and I have been constantly saying that we have to see how it goes over the next month. And the "spirit" issue may have been the players' reaction to McDonald not getting the job at VP and one or two being pampered by O'Neill. That, therefore, would not be GH's fault. But GH has got very good credentials ... there's nothing to suggest he cannot re-build successfully. We wait and we shall see ...

Thanks John I can tell you i would have posted that even if we had of been beaten 3-2 at Chelsea. That team had more balance and experience about it....lets just hope we can build on it.... but confidence is brittle, there may well be some setbacks. If Villa had lost 2-3 but in a different way - i.e. by not conceding two goals in the last few minutes - then providing the performance had been good, Villa's spirit would not have been greatly dented. As someone has already commented - if that last-gasp equaliser (after conceding such late goals) had not arrived then getting the team spirit back up again might have been beyond GH. It was, perhaps, the defining moment of Houllier's season. But my feelings about GH have been consistent - like you. I have not been able to see the logic of the calls for GH's head after just 4 months and inheriting what he did. He may have 'gaffed' a couple of times, but nothing to suggest that he is not worth his salt and cannot lead Villa out of the mire.

This is perhaps one of the best reasoned comments I have seen in a long time. It would seem to me that MON's "achievements" were achieved almost by stealth ... it was always clear that Villa fell away in the second (and most crucial) half of the season. To my mind, MON could only have been more successful at Villa by spending huge amounts of money, but even that may have failed as buying the very best players to play his style would seem to be contradictory in terms. GH, on the other hand, may well have the genius to evolve long term success, and that is what we all would like to see, I'm sure. Whether he can do it? We have to give him the chance. I vote for TRO's view.

Ginko, you're right. If Villa win then it should be seen as a very good win ... not just 'a win'.