srsmithusa

in the us, that offside call would fail the Assistant referee. Horrible. And Jones would fail for failing to produce the red against kshelney (or however it's spelled)

k shitty should be off. the laws of the game specifically equate that with striking. violent conduct. rvp's elbow should have been a caution at least. to balance a little bit, clark should have a caution for persistent infringement.... most of his have been played through on advantage.

"How dare you make me look like a manager with half a clue! What will my paymaster at SHA say if we win?! I'm not here to win games. I'm don't have the title of Agent for nothing. Now get out there and do **** all!" Both of these comments annoy the crap out of me. your ability to imagine stupid things to say is hardly evidence that he said them. I'm not happy with our play this half, and there's lots of room for criticism, but if your point is valid it shouldn't require you to make crap up to support it.

OK, I'm frustrated and depressed too, but "2 goals head start" glosses over the fact that we scored them on excellent play from several different players. But tbf to your comment, all three in this half were more given by villa than earned by arse. Frankly, that's what's so frustrating.

actually, this half is starting just like the first. EDIT: Except for Dunne giving away a pk needlessly, of course.

Yes, it was. At first I thought it was keane again, but that piece of brilliance came from petrov!

He can check out anytime he likes....but he can never leave!! Welcome to Villa from California.... LOVE this !!! i can hear the guitar solo now. Who's playing the guitar solo though??.... Andy Marshall??......... I would say mcliesh because he brought keane in, but that would cause someone to post that I'm an idiot because mcleish is shit which would cause someone else to post that the previous poster was not a good fan for not supporting mcleish which would cause half of vt to rant that the other half are blind, stupid, following sheep that can't think for themselves while the other half... oh well, I guess you get the picture. back to the music in my head...

He can check out anytime he likes....but he can never leave!! Welcome to Villa from California.... LOVE this !!! i can hear the guitar solo now.

wonderful by dunne. welll positioned, well timed, well executed.

That could be taken several ways

keene had two brilliant touches in the build up. and then..... not so much.

I was thinking the same thing.

Math major at university? just an observation :S Sure it's not two observations Matty? yeaah probly just seen my mistake ..... oops Fixed

Math major at university?

Ireland and Gabby both on the wing? That will be interesting. They will both tend to drift in to the middle which means lot's of room for Warnock and Hutton to push up, but not much room for Keane to maneuver. It may work like a charm, but Ireland and Gabby need stay wide unless you are carrying the ball or inside the 18. IMO

I'm sure some would slate it, but if I were the manager (and it's a damn good thing I'm not) I would play this with Keane in for petrov and cuellar for hutton. I know it would be very attack oriented and be a risk at the back but I would tell cuellar and warnock and clark to think defense 1st,2nd, and 3rd, and push up only rarely. Cuellar becuase he's better at staying to the defensive task first. Keane because I think his presence talking and directing is even more important than his goals so far. We need someone to coach our attack how to do anything other than get it wide and cross. Nobody else seems to know how to break down a defense any other way and our coaching staff are having trouble getting them to learn. (bannan and ireland both have the potential, but have shown it inconsistently.)

not really, Arsenals midfield isn't what it used to be, sure they still have good players but we need to go 2 up front and take the game to them, strange but i'd rather lose than have a replay. You're right, that is strange... why? Based on recent form our chances of winning today are better than our chances of winning at home... but I would always, in every circumstance prefer a draw to a loss.

my prediction of our starting line-up (not necessarily my preference) -------------given------------- hutton, collins, dunne, warnock --------gardner, petrov--------- albrighton, keane, agbonlahor -------------Bent---------------- bench: ireland, clark, zog, bannan, guzan,

I sometimes think that Carlos has not gotten the time he deserved, but then I remember that while McLeish doesn't play him... Houllier didn't play him.... MON only played him out of position as cover. I gotta believe that these more or less competent pro's that were aware of training and had much more info than we have, were all seeing something that left them uneasy. They all preferred Dunne, Collins, and Young (or Hutton). McLeish is not the only one to see some reason that Carlos should not be the King. But I will admit that I have often wondered what they were seeing (or not seeing) that I and several on here have apparently missed. Of course, whatever it is I'm glad they haven't announced it or there would be even less sell-on value.

Common sense? On VT? You must be new here.

Agreed. I know you're both wrong about me, and I hope you're wrong about the rest.

Yes he is, no hes not and your not far wrong. Not bull. If Macandally is right (and I highly doubt it) then clearly the players don't listen to him because they did more short controlled passing, went forward with numbers and effect, weren't negative, and did appeared to be clearly more motivated. So, if Macandally is right (and I highly doubt it) then I hope at half time at arsenal he tells them to hoof it and pack it in with negative tactics in a very un-motivational manner, because it clearly works wonderfully. IMO there's bull in both posts, only one of them was intentional and sarcastic.

Deleted

How so? There were bright signs when he got his own players in. I'll admit that Houllier didn't really do well with the squad he had but I think he had the long term plan where as with McLeish there isn't one. I mean if you're a club that's fighting relegation and looking to stay up you probably wouldn't bring Houllier in to sort that out (then again, McLeish didn't exactly do a great job of keeping SHA up) but if you're looking to set the foundations for a better future then Houllier isn't a bad manager for that. That IMO is what the board were trying to do. I have no idea why they got McLeish though because as I said, there's no long term plan with him. Houllier had a long term plan and McLeish has none? Is that your point? Prove it, please. Where has Mcleish said "I have no long term plan? Lerner? Faulkner? Surely you must have proof when you assert such a damning accusation. Surely you're not mean spirited, petty, or desperate enough to just make up pure crap and use it as proof that McLeish is the wrong man for Villa? What with all the certain facts that could prove it, why would you resort to making crap up? So, I request a citation to the statement "I have no long term plan for this club." All you have to do is watch how we play. We're not trying to keep the ball and move away from the kick and rush football that we've been employing for years at the club. His signings certainly don't suggest that he wants to add more technical quality to the squad. Oh, so because his actions don't appear to support the same plan of his predecessor, you assume and assert confidently that he has no plan at all. I would suggest that there are other goals and plans to consider. I would also say that at least 2 of his signings, (zog and keane) have already accomplished more toward a long term plan of success than several he let leave. I propose that he likely has an alternate long term plan. One that weighs economic stability balanced with league safety in the short term, in order to have long term success for the club. I don't know if my theory is right. But I think it's more likely than the assertion "he has no long term plan." I think if you're honest you'll admit that it's highly unlikely that he has no long term plan... might not be one either of us like mind you, but making up crap to prove he's no good, smacks of desperation. edit, your last sentence undermines your theory that the previous manager had a long term plan and AM does not.

How so? There were bright signs when he got his own players in. I'll admit that Houllier didn't really do well with the squad he had but I think he had the long term plan where as with McLeish there isn't one. I mean if you're a club that's fighting relegation and looking to stay up you probably wouldn't bring Houllier in to sort that out (then again, McLeish didn't exactly do a great job of keeping SHA up) but if you're looking to set the foundations for a better future then Houllier isn't a bad manager for that. That IMO is what the board were trying to do. I have no idea why they got McLeish though because as I said, there's no long term plan with him. Houllier had a long term plan and McLeish has none? Is that your point? Prove it, please. Where has Mcleish said "I have no long term plan? Lerner? Faulkner? Surely you must have proof when you assert such a damning accusation. Surely you're not mean spirited, petty, or desperate enough to just make up pure crap and use it as proof that McLeish is the wrong man for Villa? What with all the certain facts that could prove it, why would you resort to making crap up? So, I request a citation to the statement "I have no long term plan for this club."