GeordieVillan

I agree with that... but what happens if he beats Chelsea, then uses the same formation/personnel against Swansea and loses? Those quotes seriously worry me. If it wasn't for those, I'd be with yourself and TRO (for example) in a slightly more positive frame of mind. Those quotes though. Read them again. Oh my True - but I actually understand where he's coming from in his quotes. As squad, we have loads of options, but nothing which jumps out immediately as our starting 11. We don't have an all round striker, we don't have a goal scoring central midfielder (although perhaps Veretout might become this), Guzan is still a concern to many, we lack genuine wingers with Traore injured who can provide service to Gestede (although we do have players who can cross the ball). Its not obvious what our best team is, although obviously this is what Sherwood is being paid to determine. I keep banging on about it, but had it not been for last half an hour at Leicester, I think we would be playing 4-2-3-1 with Grealish and Gil both as part of the 3, and then the other spot on the striker position up for grabs, certainly before Traore returns. I also think that we shouldn't underestimate just how important Traore might be for us when he comes back. He's the kind of play who will need 2 players marking him (full back and winger), and that will leave space for others in midfield. I don't believe that Grealish or Gil require this (2 players marking them) because they aren't as explosive, but with Traore in the team, it will free up more space for them. If there is one thing that I will stick up for Sherwood on - its Grealish. I don't think he's been pulling up trees so far this season. His swagger this season appears to look more lazy, and I thought he was very poor second half against Stoke. Conversely, I agree with the vast majority on Gil - he's been great every time he's been involved - he currently should be one of the first 2 names on the team sheet, the other being Richards. I am incredibly disappointed with how things are going, as I expected a few more points, not alot more, but a few more, and a much more expansive style - and I'm confused as to whats going on. But lets see what happens in the next 2 games. As it is, we havn't been embarrassed by any team we have played, we've lost by single goals, and in most games the opposition have been penned back for large periods while we have tried to get back in the game - that is something at least.

The funny thing is - there's very little chance of him being sacked before the next 2 games are played - so if he can somehow conjure up a couple of results, everything might turn for him again. As a club - we are all about momentum - we go on good runs where we put a string of results together, and then we go on bad runs where we look like we've never even seen a football before. Its been like this since Gregory, although sadly the bad runs last much longer these days. He's currently staring down the barrel of a gun, but its not impossible that he could turn it around.

I also think it's very easy to say that Allardyce could come in, or whoever else, and turn things around and make things OK for now, but there is absolutely no guarantee of that. Are we forgetting his stint at Newcastle? I think that is a far more familiar situation to us right now than his work at over achieving clubs he got promoted. Allardyce was on target to keep Newcastle up that year. They were outside the drop zone when they sacked him IIRC, and Shearer then oversaw a deterioration which saw them relegated...

I wouldn't sack him yet - our next run of fixtures is so tough that any new manager would struggle anyway. I also really want Tim to succeed. Its really sad that we (and he) are in this position. If we could just win a couple of games and get ourselves in with pack i.e. away from Newcastle and Sunderland, I think the fans would give him some time. The Leicester game has really destroyed everything. Despite Chelsea's collapse, that game is still a free hit, so lets hope we can nick something. I really want Tim to survive and continue what he's building. That being said, I wouldn't complain if we brought in Big Sam, I think he could make us a very effective team which would comfortably finish mid-table for next few years at least. I actually think he has the ability to do more than that to be honest, given the opportunity.

Came to say this. I don't think I can survive another bus parker or hoofball merchant, "safe" or not. said it before I would rather go down than have a Allardyce or Pulis in charge 100% disagree with this. You would rather risk going into the football abyss than appoint managers who have proven track records in organising teams effectively and keeping them in the the league. Absolute madness. Allardyce has even built attractive teams at West Ham and Bolton, and Pulis did the same at Crystal Palace. Quite honestly, I don't ever remember a Villa team getting an easy game against an Allardyce or Pulis team, whereas I think most other teams get an easy game against us! Tony Pulis has never built a good football team, he was at Palace 6 months he inherited most of that squad and it was hardly Swansea to watch. As for Allardici he was sacked from West Ham for the same reason Dont want to see our team filled with Kevin Nolan, Andy Carroll type players. Took us years to get rid of **** Heskey Pulis used the players he had a Palace and turned them into an effective and entertaining team, albeit for a short time. Allardyce did a very good job at West Ham, and built the foundations which Bilic is taking on now. IMO we need an Allardyce type to steady the ship and turn us into a mid-table team again, rather than a team fighting relegation every year. Once we are established in mid-table, then we can maybe look to take a step up in manager, as West Ham have done. Its a shame looking back that Houlier left, he might have been the man to sort us out.

Thats true, every game we have lost has been by 1 goal only, and we've been "in" every single game until the final whistle. I'll give Sherwood that at least, we havn't been embarrassed in an individual game yet, although I think that will come soon enough.

Came to say this. I don't think I can survive another bus parker or hoofball merchant, "safe" or not. said it before I would rather go down than have a Allardyce or Pulis in charge 100% disagree with this. You would rather risk going into the football abyss than appoint managers who have proven track records in organising teams effectively and keeping them in the the league. Absolute madness. Allardyce has even built attractive teams at West Ham and Bolton, and Pulis did the same at Crystal Palace. Quite honestly, I don't ever remember a Villa team getting an easy game against an Allardyce or Pulis team, whereas I think most other teams get an easy game against us!

Dunno - but its probably the worst year to go down, with the new TV deal kicking in etc.

He's lost me today. The worst thing is - despite being confused by his starting lineup, I liked his pragmatism in trying to keep it tight and nicking an important win - I think if he'd stuck with 3-5-2 then we might have sneaked it, as I actually thought we looked solid and could have kept a clean sheet. Instead, he totally changes the system at half time and leaves us wide open - the midfield set up was a farce second half, and Grealish was terrible when he came on. We should be playing the formation he started with at Leicester - it worked well for 60 minutes and it actually suits the players we have in our squad. Instead, a second half collapse and he's totally bottled it and now we have no strategy whatsoever. The players look lost, regardless of confidence levels. Still, he won't be sacked before Xmas, regardless of whether we get another single point or not. I would take Big Sam now, and I've never said that before.

He's lost me to today. He set us up with 3-5-2 and while everyone in pre-match thread was going mental, I thought - "ok, he's being pragmatic, he's gone solid, with 3 all-rounders in midfield, and Rudy and Sinclair up front". I could see what he was trying to do, and it was ballsy to leave out Gil and Grealish, but I could kind of see why he had done it. He wanted to keep it tight and nick a much needed win and hopefully build from it. As I said in the match thread, IMO we were marginally on top in the first half - Arnoutovic was their only threat, but he was generally running into traffic in midfield when he cut inside, and I genuinely think we could have kept a clean sheet. Crespo looked decent as part of the 3 and Lescott was ok-ish compared to previous games. The midfield 3 actually seemed to have a decent balance and were probing ok. Then it goes wrong. As the fans wanted (certainly those on this board), off goes Lescott and on goes Grealish. Immediately we look more attacking, but we are wide open at the back. 5 minutes into the the second half I predicted we would lose because of this (although I did say 2-0). The goal was not a shock, and was incredibly poor. Regardless of the defenders positioning, where the hell was our midfield? Johnson has acres of space with no-one putting any pressure on him at all. Further subs are made and we throw everything forward. As usual Villa are great at going forward when they have nothing to lose, but show no urgency or attacking intent when the game is 0-0. At full time, my wife turns to me and says "why do you even bother watching anymore, you always lose". She's **** right, thats why its not funny! I've never wanted rid of a manager like this before (not Lambert or McLeish or anyone), but he's really lost me today. I feel sorry for him as he has literally tried every possible formation and selection of players and he just can't get it to work. Barring a collapse at Leicester, I think he might have hit the winning formula, but he didn't stick with it the next game to give it a proper chance. What makes it more painful is that this is actually a very decent squad on paper, certainly good enough to be comfortably safe, and Sherwood is the man who has brought alot of these players in! We genuinely have proper players in most positions, barring a really good all-round striker, but we seem to have a totally different set up every week. The players look lost now. However given our forthcoming fixtures, there is probably no point in changing manager now, as they will struggle to get anything from our next fixtures and the new manager bounce will be wasted. We are going to have Sherwood until the Newcastle game at least - even if we don't win a game before then. Hopefully he pulls a rabbit out of the hat and saves his job and our season before then. I've never ever said this about any manager of ours previously - SHERWOOD OUT. p.s. Everyone was average in terms of the players, I didn't think there was any stinking performances or stand-outs, although Grealish was very poor today when he came on, he looked lazy and sloppy, and Gil on the other hand looked great - bags of energy and drive. But I guess if you play both of these guys every week, at least one will play ok.

Classic Villa this. Only start playing when losing. He might as well bring on Gil for Veretout now.

We are wide open here since the half time change. I reckon we are gonna lose 0-2.

How the **** has Charlie Adam not been booked yet.

Grealish on for Lescott - I hope this works out, as this is what everyone here is asking for!

7 attempts to our 1 46% v 54% possession Do you think 7 attempts to 1 actually indicates how the game has gone? I would say we have been marginally the better team. Get off the internet Tim, you've got a team talk to give. Honestly, it's **** ludicrous that anyone could watch that half and think we were on top. Garbage. There's nothing in the game at all. My view is we are marginally on top, others might feel differently - but your comment suggests we are being dominated which simply isn't the case.

7 attempts to our 1 46% v 54% possession Do you think 7 attempts to 1 actually indicates how the game has gone? I would say we have been marginally the better team.

Based on how the game is going, I think it would be an error to bring on both Grealish and Gil at half time. We are well in the game with our midfield 3. The half time change should be Sinclair off and Ayew on. Everyone else has done ok.

I've watched the game and havn't seen the stats - but it seems very much 50/50 to me. Our midfield 3 are doing ok - a decent mix and they all show a bit of ambition to get forward. I guess the change at some point will be to take off Crespo and bring on Grealish or Gil. My half time change would be to bring Ayew on for Sinclair though. Nil-nil stops the rot for us, but it still not enough - we need a win today.

I'm staggered by this team selection. I can only assume like others that we has gone for 3 at the back. Can't believe neither Grealish or Gil are starting. The silver lining is that at least only one of Westwood/Sanchez are starting. I hope you've pulled a blinder with this team selection Tim, because if we lose today, I think its going to get a bit messy.

Really nervous about this. Today is a massive game as far as I am concerned. A win (by any means) closes the gap between us and the teams above, and gives us a much need confidence boost. A defeat might well just see us cut further adrift and then I will really start to worry. Gil and Grealish must start. Only 2 of Sanchez / Gana / Westwood can play. Gestede up front. And then the final place is either Sinclair, Ayew, or Veretout, and I suspect it will be Sinclair. I think we will today if he does what I've said above!

We have to find a way to fit both him and Grealish in the team every week. They were great against Leicester until Gil (and even Grealish) tired. He was replaced by the wrong player and the rest is history.

The only reason I would do this, is that it means that we can fit both Gil and Grealish in the team, without sacrificing our "strength" in midfield. Sounds more like you're trying to find a place for all 3 in a formation that doesn't suit. We may have to accept that all 3 at once isn't possible for us considering our defensive frailties. We have shown ourselves to be defensively frail even when playing 3 central midfielders - Gana / Westwood/ Sanchez - so I see no reason to stick with it. We might as well just play 2 and go for it. Whether that as a 3-5-2 I don't know.

The only reason I would do this, is that it means that we can fit both Gil and Grealish in the team, without sacrificing our "strength" in midfield.

Would love to see us play 5 at the back with Amavi and Hutton/Bacuna as genuine wing backs (basically how Liverpool set up against us). I think it would take some of the burden off our poor-defensively-defensive-midfielders and we'd only need to play 1 player in there (Sanchez/Westwood?). We could then play Gil and Grealish in a more inside forward type role as the width would come from overlapping wing backs. But it doesn't look like this will ever happen I would play 3 at the back, but only if we use Adama as the right wing back - I don't think we rely on Hutton or Bacuna to provide all of our width down the right. I think you would still need both Gana and Sanchez in the middle, but then you could have 2 from Gil / Grealish / Sinclair / Ayew / Gabby playing with Gestede. Adama as right wing back is an interesting thought. Can you actually see him doing any defensive work, though? In my mind I see him like Didier Agathe was at Celtic, only much much better!

I'm happy with him so far. I would have accepted 4 goals and a mixed bag performance wise at this stage. I think he's shown that he can play at this level, and that he can contribute something to us, which is all that counts for me. He's done well enough to cement his place in the starting 11 now I think (I would be amazed if he was dropped after scoring 3 goals in a week in a struggling team), so it will be interesting to see where Gabby fits in.