The Tim Sherwood Thread

[DCJonah]

Tbh, im not really going to give him any credit. He said the gabby sub was forced due to injury (fwiw, i didnt moan about taking gil off before someone mentions it)
And the fact that every single football fan could see that grealish needed to come on (or gil, we clearly lacked creativity and someone who will keep it on the floor) and clark really wasnt working in DM, hes not really getting credit for that either. First half was utter dreadful and doesnt deserve credit doing the absolute minimum a manager should have done at half time after an awful first half setup/tactics.

Got the win though.

And if we'd lost you'd have slaughtered him. At least you're consistent. 

yes. i would have. Because he set us up awful in the first half and we was terrible. Fail to see the point of your comment lol.

So if we lose he gets slagged off and now that we won, due to the changes he made, he gets no credit? I can see your very anti sherwood point of view. 

[Dodgyknees]

Tbh, im not really going to give him any credit. He said the gabby sub was forced due to injury (fwiw, i didnt moan about taking gil off before someone mentions it)
And the fact that every single football fan could see that grealish needed to come on (or gil, we clearly lacked creativity and someone who will keep it on the floor) and clark really wasnt working in DM, hes not really getting credit for that either. First half was utter dreadful and doesnt deserve credit doing the absolute minimum a manager should have done at half time after an awful first half setup/tactics.

Got the win though.

And if we'd lost you'd have slaughtered him. At least you're consistent. 

yes. i would have. Because he set us up awful in the first half and we was terrible. Fail to see the point of your comment lol.

But he put it right. Rather that than he lose us the game - like against Leicester - with two wrong subs, or lose us the game like Vrs West Brom, where he doesn't know how to change the game. He called it right in the second half this time.

[AshVilla]

Talking "absolute rubbish" according to Gary Rowett on talksport

http://talksport.com/football/gary-rowett-accuses-tim-sherwood-talking-absolute-rubbish-after-villa-edged-birmingham

[baginton]

To be fair to Sherwood I did hear in Trinity Road before the game he was giving Lescott 45 minutes, Clark 90 minutes and Grealish 45 minutes. Ayew replacement for Gabby so that woulfd fit.

 

[gharperr]

Tbh, im not really going to give him any credit. He said the gabby sub was forced due to injury (fwiw, i didnt moan about taking gil off before someone mentions it)
And the fact that every single football fan could see that grealish needed to come on (or gil, we clearly lacked creativity and someone who will keep it on the floor) and clark really wasnt working in DM, hes not really getting credit for that either. First half was utter dreadful and doesnt deserve credit doing the absolute minimum a manager should have done at half time after an awful first half setup/tactics.

Got the win though.

And if we'd lost you'd have slaughtered him. At least you're consistent. 

yes. i would have. Because he set us up awful in the first half and we was terrible. Fail to see the point of your comment lol.

So if we lose he gets slagged off and now that we won, due to the changes he made, he gets no credit? I can see your very anti sherwood point of view. 

haha. yes thats make me anti-sherwood because he made a change which everybody in the world could see and im not going to give him credit for it as i believe the change was close to the easiest managerial decision any manager could ever have in the world.

 

Edited September 22, 2015 by gharperr

[DCJonah]

Tbh, im not really going to give him any credit. He said the gabby sub was forced due to injury (fwiw, i didnt moan about taking gil off before someone mentions it)
And the fact that every single football fan could see that grealish needed to come on (or gil, we clearly lacked creativity and someone who will keep it on the floor) and clark really wasnt working in DM, hes not really getting credit for that either. First half was utter dreadful and doesnt deserve credit doing the absolute minimum a manager should have done at half time after an awful first half setup/tactics.

Got the win though.

And if we'd lost you'd have slaughtered him. At least you're consistent. 

yes. i would have. Because he set us up awful in the first half and we was terrible. Fail to see the point of your comment lol.

So if we lose he gets slagged off and now that we won, due to the changes he made, he gets no credit? I can see your very anti sherwood point of view. 

haha. yes thats make me anti-sherwood because he made a change which everybody in the world could see and im not going to give him credit for it as i believe the change was close to the easiest managerial decision any manager could ever have in the world.

 

Well, yes. Yes it does. 

[Zatman]

Talking "absolute rubbish" according to Gary Rowett on talksport

http://talksport.com/football/gary-rowett-accuses-tim-sherwood-talking-absolute-rubbish-after-villa-edged-birmingham

He is very complimentary towards our team and players, some Villa managers in the past have never even said that

[gharperr]

 

Well, yes. Yes it does. 

no, it really doesnt. Stop making it f'n binary. Im somewhere down the middle with sherwood and think its entirely too early to be pro/anti sherwood. Me not giving him credit for a decision which a 10 year old could do doesnt make someone anti/pro and think its laughable you think that. That sub changes absolutely nothing in my opinion on sherwood, and guess what, im still down the middle with him.

[bobzy]

And while I'm on it, can anyone explain how in the Lerner thread the owner is slated for a very minimal net spend, yet in other threads the same people slate Sherwood for having spent a lot and got so little ?

The **** gives a **** about net spend?

Get over it.

[bobzy]

I think we were poor tonight.

I think Sherwood's interview was poor too.

 

Plus side is that we won.  And Ayew looked alright after coming on.  That's quite literally it.

[DCJonah]

 

Well, yes. Yes it does. 

no, it really doesnt. Stop making it f'n binary. Im somewhere down the middle with sherwood and think its entirely too early to be pro/anti sherwood. Me not giving him credit for a decision which a 10 year old could do doesnt make someone anti/pro and think its laughable you think that. That sub changes absolutely nothing in my opinion on sherwood, and guess what, im still down the middle with him.

It hardly seems down the middle to openly admit that if we'd lost you'd have hammered him and admit that you give him no credit for us winning. If you say it is though then that's up to you.

[bobzy]

 

Well, yes. Yes it does. 

no, it really doesnt. Stop making it f'n binary. Im somewhere down the middle with sherwood and think its entirely too early to be pro/anti sherwood. Me not giving him credit for a decision which a 10 year old could do doesnt make someone anti/pro and think its laughable you think that. That sub changes absolutely nothing in my opinion on sherwood, and guess what, im still down the middle with him.

It hardly seems down the middle to openly admit that if we'd lost you'd have hammered him and admit that you give him no credit for us winning. If you say it is though then that's up to you.

One game = entire judgement over Sherwood.

 

OK.

[DCJonah]

I'll pass. We beat our rivals, i'd rather not argue with posters like yourself tonight. 

 

[gharperr]

 

Well, yes. Yes it does. 

no, it really doesnt. Stop making it f'n binary. Im somewhere down the middle with sherwood and think its entirely too early to be pro/anti sherwood. Me not giving him credit for a decision which a 10 year old could do doesnt make someone anti/pro and think its laughable you think that. That sub changes absolutely nothing in my opinion on sherwood, and guess what, im still down the middle with him.

It hardly seems down the middle to openly admit that if we'd lost you'd have hammered him and admit that you give him no credit for us winning. If you say it is though then that's up to you.

i would have hammered him because the first half setup wasnt good enough. If he carried on that setup and we won, i would have hammered him still (just as if we lost). If he setup like he did in the second half throughout the game and we lost, i wouldnt have hammered him what so ever and give him credit for the setup/tactics. (ive always been a massive believer of looking at final fulltime result as to whether tactics/players/formation is good as a retarded way to judge things)

I said i dont give him credit for the subs. Nothing to do with final result.

Edited September 22, 2015 by gharperr

[bobzy]

I'll pass. We beat our rivals, i'd rather not argue with posters like yourself tonight. 

 

Give a shit.

 

We played poorly - especially first half.  I'm not suddenly wanking off over Sherwood because we beat a Championship side 1-0 in a scrappy and, quite frankly, shit game.

[DCJonah]

 

Well, yes. Yes it does. 

no, it really doesnt. Stop making it f'n binary. Im somewhere down the middle with sherwood and think its entirely too early to be pro/anti sherwood. Me not giving him credit for a decision which a 10 year old could do doesnt make someone anti/pro and think its laughable you think that. That sub changes absolutely nothing in my opinion on sherwood, and guess what, im still down the middle with him.

It hardly seems down the middle to openly admit that if we'd lost you'd have hammered him and admit that you give him no credit for us winning. If you say it is though then that's up to you.

i would have hammered him because the first half setup wasnt good enough. If he carried on that setup and we won, i would have hammered him still (just as if we lost). If he setup like he did in the second half throughout the game and we lost, i wouldnt have hammered him what so ever and give him credit for the setup/tactics.

I said i dont give him credit for the subs. Nothing to do with final result.

So no credit for subs but credit for the result? But the subs led to the result.

I don't really get why you wouldn't give him credit but it's really not worth arguing about anymore, if you're still down the middle with the manager then fair enough. Hopefully we'll see the sort of improvement that will convince you.

[bobzy]

Gabby coming off had to happen as he was a walking red card.

I'll give Sherwood credit for making the change of Lescott off, Grealish on but, really, he needed to go for it.

 

"Lulled them into a false sense of security" as per his interview is absolute **** bollocks.

[gharperr]

 

I don't really get why you wouldn't give him credit

Go read all the posts again^. The answer is there

Edited September 22, 2015 by gharperr

[DCJonah]

 

 

I don't really get why you wouldn't give him credit

Go read ^. The answer is there

I have and I still don't get it. Just because it was an obvious decision doesn't mean it deserves no credit. Signing Traore seems a bit of a no brainer to me but i'm still going to give the club credit for deciding to do it. Giving Grealish a new contract is about as obvious as it gets but well done Aston Villa for making the right decision. Your choice but like i said, doesn't really make sense to me. 

[VillanousOne]

so if he always intended to bring Ayew and Grealish, then isn't that a planned tactic? All be it maybe he was forced to make the change earlier than he though due to injury.

but ultimately he could have planned to and brought on Gil instead of Ayew or Grealish, he could have panicked and brought Sanchez on and decided to pack the midfield even more.

he didn't, he did what he did and we won, he deserves some credit. Playing three at the back meant we looked more solid in recent games so that kinda worked even if Lescott was a bit pants. Bacuna was much better and playing Vertout seemed to pay off after a slow start. So again... some credit is deserved, even if it doesn't make up for the last three awful performances.