Super-Villan

I also think the idea that we spent enough money to get 4th place is completely untrue. We spent a lot, but considering the base we started from and the quality of 4/5 other teams (even before Man City got their cash) we were competing against, it was never that likely. If Randy and/or MON thought otherwise then fine, but I think they underestimated the situation if they did, and quite considerably. I think 6th place was pretty much exactly right considering how much we spent. The change in the economic climate and the rise of Man City were spanners in the works for us though, and we're still paying for the fact that the club didn't have any contingency for that kind of thing.

Glad he's gone.

However I can't understand why we've waited until the transfer window closed to release him from his contract, with him off the books we could have brought someone else in.

I think you've answered your own question there.

Glad he's gone, but don't think he's any worse than either of our current full backs.

If players are repeating errors then it is the responsibility of management to train it out of them or to drop the player in question. That they haven't been able to do that isn't the players fault. And it's not as if the players were repeatedly making the same mistakes under both our previous managers.

(There is such a thing as an individual error, but when these build up and up in number you have to start looking for the culprit higher up the chain.)

Houllier certainly got these players playing a less long ball game than McLeish, so I don't buy it at all that the approach is down to the players.

Fair play for Keane, his goals won us the game today, and I wasn't wanting us to sign him at all.

I am told by a Leeds fan that they have a wage cap of £12k, so however much of Delph's wages they are paying it won't be all of it.

If it frees up the wages to get another player in while giving Delph the chance to get some games under his belt and hopefully refind his form and confidence, I'd say it's a good idea.

I'd be sad to see Ireland go. Been our best player for a few games now, and you have to think how much better he could be with the same run of games under a manager who wanted to attack.

im not suggesting theyre not listening, im suggesting that were not playing any better than we did with houlier so therefore its the players not the manager in the first place.

Or - and this may seem a bit incredible to you, so bear with me - they are both poor managers and therefore both got rubbish performances out of the players.

If he was doomed from the start, he has done himself no favours at all with the lack of passion on the pitch, the negativity, lack of shots on target, lack of attacking, strange substitutions and use of players etc etc.

this is my exact point.

how can say its mcleish's fault, the negativity and lack of attacking is down to the players.

the negativity is this silly stereotype people are pinning to him because people have heard blues fans say it.

as for lack of attacking

N zogbia Ireland Gabi

Bent

dosent look very negative and non attacking to me

PLAYERS FAULT, not managers.

just because he came from blues dosent make him our enemy.

Well then we need to sack him anyway if he can't get his swashbuckling system he wants to operate working after all this time. The players must really hate him to do the opposite of what he asks when they go out on the pitch.

Listing attacking players is pointless if they aren't being asked to play in an attacking formation. And they aren't. I can tell this by simply opening my eyes and watching the way we play.

We can't get rid of Ireland. He's the only thing remotely interesting about Aston Villa right now. We need the light relief of pictures like this.

I'm not sure it was such a stupid challenge from Hutton. He gets Christmas off now, right?

If selling Bent is the only way we can afford to get rid of McLeish and get a decent manager in, I'd do it. There's no point having Bent when we've got McLeish anyway.

It's not a suitable stick to beat him with on its own, certainly. I'm arguing with because I disagree, not because I think this alone means McLeish should be sacked.

I guess my main problem is that I see nothing in Heskey, and I'm not even sure he brings the stability to the side others think he does, while providing little going forward. As I've also said, I would be loathe to ever take off Bent unless he was injured, as even when he looks out of form he can come up with a goal, and I would not want to take off our best chance of scoring unless a game was actually won (i.e. up by a few goals.)

I thought he just bought him on to tighten things up, hopefully win few balls in air, hold it up, better from defending set-pieces and just generally fresh legs. I didn't mind the change personally, I doubt the same substitution would have been made if the game was level or we needed a goal which would make the argument more credible. We didn't need a goalscorer out on the pitch with 10 minutes to go holding a lead against Bolton IMO.

To me that's very negative. What happens if they do equalise with 9 minutes to go? You've left yourself on the back foot and with much less chance of going to win the game.

Listen to yourself, bringing on a forward for a forward is negative?

If they equalise with 9 mins to go, you still have a forward on the pitch, ok its one that cant hit a cows arse with a banjo but thats all he was replacing on the pitch anyway

Listen to myself? Heh. As you say, Heskey can't hit a cow's arse. Bringing him on for Bent was an attempt to protect the game, and a signal that we had given up trying to score goals.

He replaced someone on the pitch who had missed some great chances, yes. But Bent through his career has missed great chances in matches and then gone on to score, again and again. His record bears this out. The same can not be said for Heskey.

I thought he just bought him on to tighten things up, hopefully win few balls in air, hold it up, better from defending set-pieces and just generally fresh legs. I didn't mind the change personally, I doubt the same substitution would have been made if the game was level or we needed a goal which would make the argument more credible. We didn't need a goalscorer out on the pitch with 10 minutes to go holding a lead against Bolton IMO.

To me that's very negative. What happens if they do equalise with 9 minutes to go? You've left yourself on the back foot and with much less chance of going to win the game.

Darren Bent will always get into positions and he will always miss chances. But if you play him enough he will score a shedload too. If you sub him just for missing chances then you're failing to understand the kind of player he is, and bringing on a player of Heskey's quality for him is a joke.

If Darren Bent stops getting into the position to score goals, that's when I'd worry about him. Otherwise he should stay on the pitch, because he's the best bet we have of nicking one, and about 100 times more likely to than Heskey.

I think we were going down the pan with either of them. Houllier had football knowledge. So what? Plenty have good managers habe gone shit towards the end of their careers, even though they had much more 'knowledge' of the game than they did when they were more successful. Just because he was experience doesn't mean we would have been doing any better under Houllier than McLeish. We'd have passed the ball a bit more, but still have played a pretty negative game. It's a slight improvement on what we have now, but not enough for me to wish he was still here.

Think you will find we dropped that slogan a fair while ago, would be interested to see what their new one is.

Proud history...Ooh look, a squirrel.

Unsure. Though I'm not happy with a lot of stuff that's gone on, I think there's a lot worse out there waiting to take his place.

Can we have a Faulkner vote too then?

He's worse than Houllier because we're worse to watch, but it's a close call. I think I'd rather we passed the ball - even if it's mainly backwards - rather than the hoofing and the lack of a clue we have right now.

It doesn't really have a choice though, does it? The question isn't, Would I rather Houllier was still here, it's Who would I like to be the Villa manager rather than either of these two clowns.

I see that John Gregory was in the crowd today...

Good luck to him. Won't have a lot of money to spend, but I reckong they've got the kind of squad he'll work very very well with. A striker and a winger in Jan and they could yet challenge for europe.

I hope he gets a good reception on his VP return, though I fear it won't be great.

We couldn't even convince Martinez to come for a chat and MoN is better than the current clown in charge.

No, Martinez simply chose to stay with Wigan out of loyalty, nothing what so ever to do with Villa.

No, that is what Martinez said. And of course he'd say that. We have no idea really, but other things such as what Villa offered him are certainly possible reasons.

I think either Hughes or MON would have Sunderland above us before long.

I would have given him some community service on top of the fine and ban myself, but either way I'm quite prepared to give him another chance and hope he learns from it.

£4,500 fine and 18 month driving ban. Could have been worse.