TrentVilla

Like or loath him (I'm somewhere in the middle) you can't knock the guy for how he operates regardless of if you agree with his decisions.

1 minute ago, hippo said:

Job title ? Manager or head coach.

I'd say the former.

Head coach for sure

Just now, hippo said:

Still not convinced this is a done deal. Wouldnt surprise me if Gerro leaves us in the lurch at the last minute 

He will be confirmed by Friday and in post by Monday I think.

10 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Any premier league club would be a step up even Norwich. Sorry but that is the truth as the financial gap is so big now.  The point I would make is that when O'Neill left Leicester to go to Celtic in 2000 that was seen as a step up, and when Rodgers did the exact reverse a few years ago that was seen also as a step up.

The journalist is bang on, the other chap just comes across as clueless, ill informed and bitter.

3 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It’s possible to be sceptical about this appointment and still get behind the new manager when he joins.

I’m very much in the middle on this.

Positives:

• Gerrard took on Rangers at a tricky time and has made it work
• He has worked under some very good managers in Houllier, Benitez, Rodgers and Klopp (as youth coach)
• He plays the right kind of football
• He handles the media well, and speaks very calmly and rationally about his job
• He recognises that he can’t do it all himself, and has put together a really strong coaching team
• He has that obsessive winner’s mentality and natural leadership qualities

Negatives:

• This is a huge step up from a two-horse race to a league where every week you’re up against top players and top managers, and constantly need to be preparing perfectly for the next game.
• Success in Scotland has often not translated south of the border. McLeish, Lennon, Souness, etc etc.
• I never thought Gerrard was very tactically aware as a player - he used to run around like a headless chicken. Has he suddenly developed deep tactical understanding in retirement?
• I can’t be **** with the media circus around this being an audition for Liverpool (although this is a minor concern tbh).

But yeah, if he joins, I’m looking forward to seeing what he can do. Personally I still feel it would have made a lot more sense to change manager in the summer, but what’s done is done.

Great post and agree with almost every word.

I think a change in manager is always better in the summer, perhaps it should have happened last summer but I don’t think they could wait until next.

5 minutes ago, peterw said:

Reading not your strongest skill I see.

Yes, hands up I misread your post. Stay classy

Just now, Eastie said:

Next you will questioning if Santa exists

Sure he does and he is a Villa fan, I’ve seen hats that prove it.

3 minutes ago, Eastie said:

Yep I think players will know they are on a good thing here at villa and if they want to stay here they will need to perform or be shipped out - very few players here will get better club than this 

And that has been our problem for years.

2 hours ago, peterw said:

I really don't want Gerrard or McAllister if it comes to that, as it just seems more of the same that got us into trouble before 15/16. I'd rather have none of the back room staff that were around for the O'Neill stage onwards (yes, even Sid - although that's a different conversation). We are taking a step backwards into looking for a name rather than looking to be inventive and pushing on with exciting ideas and a manager that is a signal of intent. 

Gerrard is an open goal that could do for Purslow when we have the chance to really sell ourselves to some better, experienced, and successful managers. Gerrard has achieved nothing of note other than win a league when Celtic were struggling. If he wants to earn his spurs in the Prem then he needs to be moving to a Wolves or a Palace, not us. He may succeed he may not, be we need to look at elite level managers/coaches before we look at hollywood names.

I really am against his appointment and think it sends out all the wrong signals. I'm quite underwhelmed at best and disappointed at worst that this is the best Purslow can come up with.

Edit - misread post

34 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Little worried about the lack of experience with Gerrard and McAllister. If Gerrard had an experienced No2 it would be a little different, but he got McAllister his first job since Villa when he took him to Rangers (if you exclude the few months he was coach at Liverpool). 

Too much of this is the name in lights which can boost Villa's image and the existing relationship between Gerrard and Purslow. Still, on the positive side he's done a great job at Rangers and has over 3 full seasons there. We already have a quality squad and a player with his Gravitas could get the best out of the players we have.

I suspect Danks and MacPhee will stay in place for the remainder of the season at request of Lange. 

Look we're all going to get behind Gerrard, like we did JT who almost everyone hated as a player. 

Seriously, McAllister doesn’t lack experience.

Just now, sidcow said:

Who was our last manager who had won a domestic league before joining us?  Venglos? 

I am discounting Alex McLeish as he's not really a manager. 

Houllier

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Also fair.

I think my comments aren't really about whatever contract length we give a manager, it's about the philosophy of the club's leadership group. I mean they bought the club, including an inherited manager, who they got rid of in October, after the summer takeover. They had an aim of promotion in 2 years and stay up and then push on. That plan was met, arguably ahead of schedule. They've now potted the manager who did that (because results etc.) . That's not something I personally liked, but I understand it.

The reservation is that they've acted in haste rather than according to longer term thinking and an acceptance that there will be bumps in the road. That the money and ambition have rubbed up against a reality in a massively competitive league and they've over-reacted to the real world circumstances as soon as their ambitions and plans started to go awry. It's their right to do that, it's their club, their money, their employees. I'm uneasy around the thinking though, I'm uneasy about the time they have to get a nee man in, or if they even have a plan around replacing Dean in this 2 weeks with someone who genuinely fits their objectives, that led to them sacking Dean.

Maybe they'll feel they were reluctantly forced into it and had no choice. That the evidence around there being a change needed has been gathering for all of this year. Others would maybe say the circumstances around the pre-season and first 10 games are far from all at the feet of Dean Smith, and that while he was struggling to solve the problems caused by those circumstances, he's carried the can for wider issues and a new manager won't fix those underlying issues and getting someone in to do a short term job is the way to lose money and embed instability. Chelsea make that work (at considerable financial cost) , most other clubs don't. I think we need a longer term manager than the next cab off the rank who will be gone in a couple of years, and the process the club goes through to get them needs to be considered and thorough, not a panic move.

 

No, I know your concerns weren't around contract length but I think it was a useful illustration of how the role of 'managers' or 'head coaches' are changing and not just in terms of their titles.

In terms of the philosophy of the leadership I'm not sure I see it the same way neither do I view Smith's exit the same way, I don't think it was done in haste.

These owners and Purslow it seems have genuine ambition and the means to pursue it, ultimately it remains to be seen it they are achievable or they are willing to pay what it would cost to achieve but I think they have very clear objectives. As for philosophy, I'm not quite sure what you mean, surely their philosophy is invest in all parts of the club, in good people are in the pursuit of continuous improvement. 

I get that you and others feel that they may have acted in haste on Smith rather than according to longer term thinking, that they've been unaccepting of bumps in the road. I'm not sure that is true, I don't think the decision to sack him was reached swiftly neither do I think it was done out of panic but I'll come back to that in a moment. Purslow suggested they were ultimately disappointed with the second half of last season and I suspect conversations occurred about Smith then and quite likely in the summer. It is conjecture I accept but I think it is reasonable to assume, I don't think Smith's departure is on the back of the last 5 games or the 11 games of this season. 

So while I can understand your view point I don't agree with the assertion that they've acted in haste or through a lack of acceptance of bumps in the road. I don't think they've over-reacted, I think removing Smith was the right thing to do personally, as unpalatable as that may be to some.

I think they knew who they wanted before Smith was removed from his post, we've seen lots of names linked in the media but it seems like only one has been actively been pursued and that is Gerrard. Now there is a different conversation to be hand on the merits or otherwise of that choice, if it proves to be the choice, but I don't feel it is right to say they don't have a plan to replace Smith, I think he will be replaced in little over a week from Smith's departure.

Returning to the earlier point about not acting out of panic, I don't think Smith's departure is due to any fear of relegation, I don't think they acted because they were "reluctantly forced into it and had no choice" I just don't see that at all. If it was a forced, more defensive move then that would manifest itself in who they sort to step in, I don't think a pursuit of Gerrard fits that narrative. I think even the harshest Smith critic would be hard pressed to argue that circumstances haven't conspired against him but I think even his staunchest support would also have to accept the issues stretch further back than the summer and the form in the absence of Grealish has been consistently poor.

Don't mistake this as a ringing endorsement for Purslow or Gerrard, I've reservations about both, I  just quite strongly disagree with the view that the change is born out of panic and I just see no evidence at all to support that view. 

Anyway, pleasure as always.

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's fair comment.

The difficulty I have with the board doing that is it's basically (very) short termism. "we need a manager for the next 2 years and in that time we want him to do this..." Even with clubs these days having more segregated youth development and so on, if Villa has a plan to grow our own players, integrate them into the first team, get into Europe, challenge for trophies/Europe it's extremely hard to do that for any manager in 2 seasons. So then your left with "just win enough games to not get sacked and/or to get a gig somewhere else". I would wager that well run clubs identify their aims and then actively seek managers out who will be able to (in their opinion) achieve those club aims over a period of their contract length and that the contract length will be several years more than 2.

I appreciate that Man City or Liverpool maybe have the luxury of being pretty certain that Klopp or Guardiola will deliver, if not immediately then in the short term, and maybe the next rank of clubs are more hoping that whoever they choose works out, but I would still like to think that Villa are not veering into short termism, and unfortunately I think we may be - we may be reacting rather than being proactive. "this one lost some games, get me a new one...no I don't know who..."

I don’t disagree but then given the stat I quoted previously and the rapidly increasing salaries of managers I’d ask does it make sense to appoint managers on 4 or 5 year contracts? I’d argue not and would point at the 18 month deal (with options to extend) Spurs appointed Conte on a few weeks ago.

As you rightly say football management is different to it used to be, it is segmented and I think “head coaches” in ones where clubs are run well are more interchangeable than old school authoritarian managers were.

I think if they appoint Gerrard they are doing so in the knowledge of the spectre of Liverpool but with the belief he still help them get the club where they wish to be. I think that is a fairly pragmatic approach and reflective of what the modern role of a head coach is.

Obviously I’d rather that we appoint someone who gives us continuity over a prolonged period but I’m not really sure that is how football is now.

I get your concern over short termism but would argue they tried to give Bruce time, I think they gave Smith time although accept others think different and would give Gerrard time. That external circumstance may cut that short isn’t a reflection on those running the club or how they are doing so but I accept that in appointing Gerrard they would be accepting that possibility. 

I guess though my point remains, I think all managers are on relatively short term appointments regardless of the length of the contract. 

Just now, lexicon said:

Because it goes hand in hand with a host or other shit, like assaulting a DJ for no bloody reason. Not a good character.

Didn’t bother people re Terry.

Just now, lexicon said:

Any photos of Dean trying to intentionally injure someone? Or Favre? Or many other people who aren't absolute ****?

He has gone, he isn’t coming back.

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

How long do the good ones last?

Serious question - because my impression is they last longer than that on average, and we want a good one, don't we?

(edit, obviously the play on words isn't the serious bit)

Well yes probably, they have to balance out the Nuno’s of this world.

I just don’t think you can appoint managers with the expectancy of longevity or rather discount managers through an expectation it could be lacking.

Yes there is a threat of losing Gerrard to Liverpool but for that to happen he will have to have been successful. I can live with that.

I also think we have to be realistic in thinking any manager that comes in and is able to elevate us from mid table to top 6/8 is potentially likely to become of interest to other clubs. 

If we are looking for a good manager to come in and elevate us who we don’t fear the possibility of losing in a couple of years well that is going to be some damn fine recruitment from Purslow.

3 minutes ago, nick76 said:

But Alan Hutton isn’t in the frame for the managers job……context!

No, but if he were people wouldn’t be posting pictures of him cutting a WBA player in half and saying he wasn’t a good character would they.

So I agree context is important, so is consistency.