John_Lerwill

Very interesting, Denis! :-) Yes, the run of pooooor performances at VP brought a lot of people into dejection mode on a big scale, but as time moves on it is quite apparent that AM is the manager and that nothing is going to move him unless there is a disastrous sequence of results. I stand by the view that the fans and the club should never have been put in this situation (by his appointment) but we have to accept he's there and is staying. So, right AM, what tricks have you got up your sleeve? .. 'Cause you'll need 'em!

Barry'sboots, I think you're a bit harsh in this very detailed analysis of what I thought was a good article. Obviously you want a detailed blow-for-blow report, but perhaps that is not the writer's style? Give him some space for goodness sake. ;-) Yes, it left out the bit about Frimpong (and that - considering his impact on the match - is admittedly a glaring omission), but in respect of what he did write I rather agree with his assessments. Some of our opinions clearly difer to yours though I think you tend to make out that yours is the right version. Though I share your dislike of AM being at Villa Park, I think perhaps we should lighten up a bit on this occasion, especially as this is a debut writer (I understand).

Fine report, Srathem!! A plus would be to add a player-by-player rating, but not essential I suppose.

Yes. And of those 6 wins, 4 were against teams low down in the league and who were on a bad run. Anyway, you never know, Villa may well now get a good result at Arsenal in the Cup and even win the Cup!! ... That would be fine, provided that it does not accompany relegation!

Yes, I'm in sympathy with these views. We all looked to RL helping Villa to rise upwards (not downwards) when he first arrived with his billionaire tag and (as has been said elsewhere) he's made mistakes on how he's played with his fortune. I think the point is that we are now coming up to 16 years since the club last won anything and as things are looking at the moment we could be waiting another 16 years. If not that then several more years. Having repaired the damage of the administration up to 1968 during the 1970s onwards, I do not feel that the board should be adopting policies (e.g. managerial appointments and severe cutbacks) that could threaten the restoration of Aston Villa as a leading club. Villa is still by far the biggest club in the Midlands and yet the south and the north have been allowed to pick up all the major trophies in the last 20 years.

Hardly brave - Gabby was too ill to play in the 2nd half! Nobody appears to be picking that up, Denis. The post-match interview with AM confirms that Gabby had to go off at half-time as he was ill - he was ill before the game but opted to start. Also, there are some who are giving credit to McLeish for including Gardner and Keane in the starting line-up. These were pretty well enforced selections because of injuries to others including Ireland. It almost seems that some good is coming out of matches in spite of McLeish, not because of his intentions. This win was very welcome, but we still cannot get away from the fact that 4 of Villa's 6 wins this season have been obtained against Blackburn, Wigan, Bolton and Wolves - all teams that were having bad runs at the time that Villa played them. It will be very interesting to see what happens against a Hughes-inspired QPR. A well deserved win against them and I might then begin to think that perhaps AM is doing something right after orchestrating 5 home matches without a win. BTW, I thoroughly agree with Julie that abuse at your own players (any player in fact) is not warranted. If that is all that can be offered then those "supporters" be better not present at VP.

Julie, today's team had virtually the same experienced team as it has had all season, except that Warnock didn't start and Gardner coming in. But let's discount today as injuries and illness affected the selection - even though Gardner was one of the better players! No, I can't accept the youth argument - there are not enough of 'em to regard them as being the issue i.m.h.o. As for getting behind the team - that's (as I've said) a perspective that is interesting and may be valid except that I only back the team if I see they're trying. I have not seen too much evidence of method or trying this season - which I presume is down to methods that McLeish is using. And also I feel that many cannot stand the thought of McLeish being around after this season (not because of his Blews connection) - so there's some motivation for minimising the reasons for keeping him. I feel AM was a badly advised appointment and that Villa should have a manager that the fans can respect based on his previous record - even if he came from the lower division. I do sympathise with your view, but it is the manager that's the underlying problem I think.

Exactly... because IMHO there's too many fans down at VP more interested in finding something to moan about than support the team. Our away support is amazing - they were singing their hearts out today even when we were losing. That's an interesting view, Julie, and certainly one to consider. However, can you or anyone explain to me why this season's entire record at home has been so poor? Especially when we might consider how Villa finished off at the end of last season (though Ash and Downing having since left does make a difference). To have started poorly at VP and then only let it get worse is not what VP is about. These players are paid too much not to take responsibility - in the old days they would fight to get what they could out of a match, but now they appear to be pussy cats by comparison.

Denis, you and I are in accord - believe me! Your points are sound. I just have to say a win is a win ... But I remain very anxious about our home record.

This is a major point isn't it? No win at home in 5 games and QPR potentially being another problem team to face with Hughes in charge. It could well be another draw. Meanwhile, congrats to the team on getting a win. That win today was totally necessary i.m.o.

These are (apparently) the clubs with average attendances below 90% capacity: I am in error by previously stating that Villa are 16th in this table, As can be seen, the club's position is 17th.

Harry's post states exactly as how I see it, though I still wonder how anyone could buy up the club and not think of the longer term financial consequences. Be that as it may be. Another problem is, if AM is removed (which is unlikely), will the board be capable of appointing a suitable replacement? I ask as the appointment of AM seemed so utterly contrary to the expectations of the supporters. As for the supporters voting with their feet, apparently Villa's %age attendance is now down to 80.3% of capacity, which (%-wise) puts Villa 16th in a table of the 20 Prem clubs.

I'm not much in sympathy with your last para! Sorry John.

Villa have a manager that must have some kind of quality - he has kept faith with Ireland, for example, and the result of that has been producing some decent play from that player. But then Nzog has been showing improvement of late and now is shoved onto the bench. He didn't even get a chance as a sub. And the player that this week came in with a clarion call - Robert of Keane - is given a 10-minute cameo. For goodness sake, if he's only on board for 7 weeks Villa might as well use him - right?! At least a 30 minute spell on the pitch would have been more understandable. Meanwhile, a manager who was a defender still cannot get his defence to deal with straight-forward defensive issues. Some manager; some coach. At least he seems to have trained up Warnock to give our keeper some useful on-the-field training! Less than 30,000 Villa fans turned up yesterday, it seems. That seems to be a definite indicator that the fans are getting fed up.

But the gates are not reducing significantly. ... When attendances start dropping below the 30,000 mark on a regular basis then perhaps Lerner will take some notice but not at the moment. I completely agree with that but conversely would say if Villa continue to drop points at home whilst putting up feeble performances then it would not take long for that 30k to be reached. However, in that group of matches you quoted the Arsenal match showed some hope and then there was that win at Chelsea before the Swansea match. It's if the hope dwindles completely that RL will have cause to worry about revenues.

If that be true, Steve, then that banner of "Proud History, Bright Future" becomes more laughable. No, there has to be point when even the current owner will have to say, "enough is enough" - especially if the gates reduce much further. Who wants to go down to VP to see one ignominious defeat after another?

Trying to find what the record number of successive home defeats in the league is. There were certainly 5 at the end of that frozen winter of 1962-63 when Villa hardly played for 3 months from December to March and then had so many games to catch up, losing 11 in total on the trot in the process (which is a total consecutive defeats record). I can't envisage another run as bad as that in Villa's history. I could be wrong but have just scoured through Villa's bad seasons (like 1935-36, 1957-58, 1966-67, 1986-87 etc) and can't see more than the 5 I've stated. If 5 is the record then we're one away from equalling it. i.e. if Everton win then that record will have been equalled

Scottie, it's not acceptable to have lost 4 home games in succession (and 5 out of the last 6). Nearly all of the points we have gained of the 23 have been against lower opposition (particularly in the first 10 matches) and even that record is starting to fall apart.

Totally agreed with your second para steve-67! :-) My comments about Bent are assuming that the current management regime doesn't change. I don't think it will.

I think that's becoming a bit of a myth tbh. Bent didn't play at QPR earlier this season when we were dreadful for 60 minutes, as bad as today. He also didn't play at home to Liverpool which certainly wasn't a bundle of laughs. The Chelsea game was 1-1 when he came on, scored the last and remember just before we scored he should've had a penalty when Terry fouled him. You raise good points, but Albrighton has also been re-introduced recently, combined with Nzog switching to the left. I feel that a combination of that and Bent not being present has helped. As for his Chelsea contribution, that was rather at the end of the match and after Villa were 2-1 up. The chance for his goal was one that anyone similarly placed should have snapped up i.m.o. Please see my other comments above.

without Bent we lost at home to liverpool and arsenal and drew away at stoke in one of the dullest games of the season. i reckon you could count on 1 hand the amount of shots we had on target in those games combined. our only goal came from an assist from an arsenal player, against the worst away defence in the league who were missing both starting fullbacks then against chelsea we were 1-1 and had been battered all 2nd half. bent comes on and we score 2 goals in the 5 minutes we manage to keep the ball and string a few passes together in that whole half. i dont get this idea of improved performances and turning the corner. ... Yes, well, I didn't think everyone would agree with my proposition (maybe no-one does)! :-) The point I was leading to was that everyone stated that although Villa lost the Gunners match, Villa's was a better performance - something seemed to be taking shape as oposed to the gutless approach in previous matches. If there was a shape taking effect it couldn't come into fruition all at once, and the Stoke match seemed to build a bit more on the solidity aspect. The Chelsea match seemed to indicate confirmation that Villa were building better as a team. OK, Bent came on very late and scored, but anyone could have scored from the chance presented to him. I'd just got the feeling that Villa seem to know how to play better without Bent in the team and even look better balanced without him. Now (if that's true) it doesn't indicate that Bent is u/s, it probably just indicates that his team-mates are not up to being able to play to his abilities - and the fact that his goal-rate has slowed down quite considerably may seem to indicate that. The other answer is that Villa should spend more to get a better supplier of chances for Bent, but the club seem to short of cash. It may be worth making a pot out of Bent and buying a more conventional striker for a third of the price Villa receive.

In fairness (and I'm no supporter of AM) Villa did seem to start showing improvement as soon as Bent was out of the side. Perhaps letting Bent go and a just a decent striker brought in may solve the issue? It may sound crazy, but was it such a coincidence that with Bent out there was improvement?

That is pretty well the key point i.m.o. Villa's improvement has started since Albrighton came into the team and since Bent got injured and was out!! Is that a coincidence? Albrighton may not be a great player but he does offer the team some balance as I see it. Keeping a side together if they start to click is a key tactic is it not? Good sporting statement that. It's good to read it. Another key statement. Four defeats at home in succession is not good enough.

You are wrong, Peter: (1) the returns from the search facility did not show that the text was written by someone other than the name I was searching under; (2) I did not 100% blame the software - I have pretty well equally apportioned blame to myself for taking it on face value. I made a mistake in accepting what I was given and that was it. (3) I did apologise to the person for as much as I could apologise for. End of story. I am not discussing this anymore. It is going way over the top. There is nothing else to accept.

By the way, Pete, you are not in a position to infer that"I am a bad workman". There's also something somewhere that refers to people who always make judgments about others. What's going on here, Pete? Do you have some personal gripe against me that you want to perpetuate an issue that has been done and dusted? If so, speak up - tell me what the matter is old son! ;-)