The Tim Sherwood Thread

[Isa]

Spurs yesterday was better but we still Scraped it, I wasn't as conviced with the win as some made out.

Who cares? It was Spurs. Away. A team that were 6th at the time of playing them, who hadn't lost a home game since November and who had scored eighteen goals in their last six league games at White Hart Lane. Blimey!

[sexbelowsound]

Scraped it? I thought we were perfectly good value for that win.

[abdomlahor]

I thought it was one of the more comfortable victories we've had this season.

Edited April 12, 2015 by abdomlahor

[Texas_Mike]

Sherwood deserves nothing but praise. Who knows if it will last but why people don't enjoy the ride I have no idea. It is like they don't want to find happiness. Me, I grave it when it comes to Villa and apart from the Swansea game I have been perfectly happy. Keep it up Mr. Sherwood!!!

[Mantis]

Scraped it? I thought we were perfectly good value for that win.

That's not how it works mate.

 

If Villa win - we scraped it/it was against a dire team

If Villa lose/don't get the result we won't - we were shit, deserved it etc

[Grasshopper]

 

 

....................To achieve that kind of turn around in such a short space of time is remarkable.

................. He has given us a bit of swagger and bounce and I would not have believed that possible after I saw the players trudge off against Hull just two months ago looking like they had all the fight knocked out of them.

 

 

Just 2 points from a spot on post.

 

an unbelieveable turnaround

 

[foreveryoung]

Martin Keown seems to think we have picked up a bit of a gem in Sherwood.

People were saying the same about Lambert.

[blandy]

 

I can see how fans are happy now, Lambert was close to useless in the end (no pun intended), so to be fair we didn't need much.

 

We didn't need much? we were a team that had scored 12 goals in 25 games, had taken 12 points from a possible 63, had won just 2 of our previous 21 league games. We couldn't score, we couldn't create, we'd forgotten how to win and overall were absolutely clueless. In terms of confidence we were shattered and had none at all. What Sherwood faced was a monumental task in turning us around and for me he inherited the worst squad, in terms of confidence and being in a sustained run of diabolical form, that any Villa manager had ever inherited. We were a shambles.

I see you have also down played who we have played and that wins against a shit West Brom and Sunderland prove nothing. In the few weeks pre Sherwood we also played, an at the time, shit Leicester, West Brom, Sunderland,Palace and Hull. We didn't win any of them.

I don't think Sherwood has done anything spectacular if you look simply at our results and be flippant about what went before he arrived. We have though gone from a team that had scored 12 goals in 25 games to one that has scored 12 goals in its last 8 league games, we have gone from a team that set up to contain other sides and played the ball backwards and sideways to now setting up, in both personnel and formation, to win and playing with a forward thinking mindset and the first thought now is to play the ball forwards.To achieve that kind of turn around in such a short space of time is remarkable.

I think the guy has been a breath a fresh air. I find his optimistic, full of self belief and belief in his team, approach infectious. He has got the whole club including the majority of fans believing we will at the very least stay up and will have a go in games regardless of the opposition. He has given us a bit of swagger and bounce and I would not have believed that possible after I saw the players trudge off against Hull just two months ago looking like they had all the fight knocked out of them.

I agree with a great deal of that. The bits I don't quite agree on are these two.

1. Trivial point, I know, but the side that got relegated under Ellis/McNeill, now that was far worse. There wasn't the international class players comparable to Vlaar or Benteke. The best players were  Nigel Spink, Mark Walters & Steve scumbag Hodge and then there were a couple of young prospects - Tony Daley, primarily. But anyway...

2. More relevantly, I think Sherwood has done quite a lot. Firstly, where for some reason Lambert couldn't keep or appoint decent coaches, bringing in Kev Mac and Stan closed that strange gap. Where Lambert tried various different, very different styles of play, Sherwood has simplified things. He's got rid of the metaphorical clouds both in terms of not knowing what exactly players were supposed to, and even more importantly in terms of mood and confidence. He's far from solved all the problems, but looking at the way the team plays now, compared to Lambert's last few games is remarkable.

 

I know "new manager effect" can do that, and it's not clear whether it'll last, but to be honest surely 99% of fans would have said, 8 league games ago, when he was appointed "just keep us up". So whether long term he turns into a real good manager, or whether he doesn't, if he "just keeps us up" that'll do. That would deserve massive relief and thanks.

He's done what he's done despite a fairly lengthy and continuing injury list, as well. He's made what looked nigh on impossible look, if not easy, then uncomplicated and the ability to do that, to keep things simple is underrated. I don't think there's a great deal of football intelligence in our squad, and they really needed everything just made simple.

 

And while I'm rambling on, there's another thing. If his mate the QPR coach Chris Ramsey gets sacked or leaves there, there were things that QPR did tactically that were a million miles cannier that anything we've done in ages.

The thing I noticed that stands out the most, as an example, was their 2nd goal against us from the corner. The way Caulker and the guy who scored moved in tandem, Caulker blocking Clark (and then going on to bump into Benteke I think it was) leaving the other guy to head the ball in was definitely deliberate and planned. We never seem to do that sort of thing.

[Danishlad]

 

 

I can see how fans are happy now, Lambert was close to useless in the end (no pun intended), so to be fair we didn't need much.

 

We didn't need much? we were a team that had scored 12 goals in 25 games, had taken 12 points from a possible 63, had won just 2 of our previous 21 league games. We couldn't score, we couldn't create, we'd forgotten how to win and overall were absolutely clueless. In terms of confidence we were shattered and had none at all. What Sherwood faced was a monumental task in turning us around and for me he inherited the worst squad, in terms of confidence and being in a sustained run of diabolical form, that any Villa manager had ever inherited. We were a shambles.

I see you have also down played who we have played and that wins against a shit West Brom and Sunderland prove nothing. In the few weeks pre Sherwood we also played, an at the time, shit Leicester, West Brom, Sunderland,Palace and Hull. We didn't win any of them.

I don't think Sherwood has done anything spectacular if you look simply at our results and be flippant about what went before he arrived. We have though gone from a team that had scored 12 goals in 25 games to one that has scored 12 goals in its last 8 league games, we have gone from a team that set up to contain other sides and played the ball backwards and sideways to now setting up, in both personnel and formation, to win and playing with a forward thinking mindset and the first thought now is to play the ball forwards.To achieve that kind of turn around in such a short space of time is remarkable.

I think the guy has been a breath a fresh air. I find his optimistic, full of self belief and belief in his team, approach infectious. He has got the whole club including the majority of fans believing we will at the very least stay up and will have a go in games regardless of the opposition. He has given us a bit of swagger and bounce and I would not have believed that possible after I saw the players trudge off against Hull just two months ago looking like they had all the fight knocked out of them.

I agree with a great deal of that. The bits I don't quite agree on are these two.

1. Trivial point, I know, but the side that got relegated under Ellis/McNeill, now that was far worse. There wasn't the international class players comparable to Vlaar or Benteke. The best players were  Nigel Spink, Mark Walters & Steve scumbag Hodge and then there were a couple of young prospects - Tony Daley, primarily. But anyway...

2. More relevantly, I think Sherwood has done quite a lot. Firstly, where for some reason Lambert couldn't keep or appoint decent coaches, bringing in Kev Mac and Stan closed that strange gap. Where Lambert tried various different, very different styles of play, Sherwood has simplified things. He's got rid of the metaphorical clouds both in terms of not knowing what exactly players were supposed to, and even more importantly in terms of mood and confidence. He's far from solved all the problems, but looking at the way the team plays now, compared to Lambert's last few games is remarkable.

 

I know "new manager effect" can do that, and it's not clear whether it'll last, but to be honest surely 99% of fans would have said, 8 league games ago, when he was appointed "just keep us up". So whether long term he turns into a real good manager, or whether he doesn't, if he "just keeps us up" that'll do. That would deserve massive relief and thanks.

He's done what he's done despite a fairly lengthy and continuing injury list, as well. He's made what looked nigh on impossible look, if not easy, then uncomplicated and the ability to do that, to keep things simple is underrated. I don't think there's a great deal of football intelligence in our squad, and they really needed everything just made simple.

 

And while I'm rambling on, there's another thing. If his mate the QPR coach Chris Ramsey gets sacked or leaves there, there were things that QPR did tactically that were a million miles cannier that anything we've done in ages.

The thing I noticed that stands out the most, as an example, was their 2nd goal against us from the corner. The way Caulker and the guy who scored moved in tandem, Caulker blocking Clark (and then going on to bump into Benteke I think it was) leaving the other guy to head the ball in was definitely deliberate and planned. We never seem to do that sort of thing.

 

This is a good post. 

However, I dont agree that Ramsay was tactically canny. We destroyed them first half. This means Ramsays plan A didn't work. Then, because we were destroying them second half he made a change. Anyone else in that situation would have done so.

[useless]

 

People are just exercising caution. There are plenty of examples of managers coming into teams doing well initially and then it going wrong, Pulis at Albion being a recent example. I think it's a bit early to declare him the future of Aston VIlla and act all indignant if anyone dares to question him.

 

Given the nonsense that some people came out with in the defence of that muppet Lambert, I now find it unbelievable that people can't just enjoy a better manager getting us playing better football which has led to an upturn in results.  Each to their own though I guess.

 

 

Defending Lambert has nothing to do with being cautious about Sherwood, and being cautions doesn't mean you aren't enjoying results. Some people seem to be under the strange illusion that if you liked Lambert you can't like Sherwood, or if you disliked Lambert then you shouldn't dare to criticize Sherwood.

[blandy]

 

And while I'm rambling on, there's another thing. If his mate the QPR coach Chris Ramsey gets sacked or leaves there, there were things that QPR did tactically that were a million miles cannier that anything we've done in ages.

The thing I noticed that stands out the most, as an example, was their 2nd goal against us from the corner. The way Caulker and the guy who scored moved in tandem, Caulker blocking Clark (and then going on to bump into Benteke I think it was) leaving the other guy to head the ball in was definitely deliberate and planned. We never seem to do that sort of thing.

 

This is a good post. 

However, I dont agree that Ramsay was tactically canny. We destroyed them first half. This means Ramsays plan A didn't work. Then, because we were destroying them second half he made a change. Anyone else in that situation would have done so.

Thanks. Just on Ramsay, my point wasn't that his tactics made them better than us, just that there were things his team did, in terms of inventiveness and being a step ahead in certain aspects of the game that are not things I've noticed Villa do for a long time - things like play from attacking corners, the way he changed the formation early in the second half and got control of the game. When was the last time Villa did anything like that, really? I suppose you could argue Sherwood changed things a bit v Albion in the cup, at half time, but it's been rare to see Villa change the way we play during a game, and our main threat from free kicks and corners is a simple one - give it to Beteke. I just liked his invention.

[Condimentalist]

 

 

And while I'm rambling on, there's another thing. If his mate the QPR coach Chris Ramsey gets sacked or leaves there, there were things that QPR did tactically that were a million miles cannier that anything we've done in ages.

The thing I noticed that stands out the most, as an example, was their 2nd goal against us from the corner. The way Caulker and the guy who scored moved in tandem, Caulker blocking Clark (and then going on to bump into Benteke I think it was) leaving the other guy to head the ball in was definitely deliberate and planned. We never seem to do that sort of thing.

 

This is a good post. 

However, I dont agree that Ramsay was tactically canny. We destroyed them first half. This means Ramsays plan A didn't work. Then, because we were destroying them second half he made a change. Anyone else in that situation would have done so.

Thanks. Just on Ramsay, my point wasn't that his tactics made them better than us, just that there were things his team did, in terms of inventiveness and being a step ahead in certain aspects of the game that are not things I've noticed Villa do for a long time - things like play from attacking corners, the way he changed the formation early in the second half and got control of the game. When was the last time Villa did anything like that, really? I suppose you could argue Sherwood changed things a bit v Albion in the cup, at half time, but it's been rare to see Villa change the way we play during a game, and our main threat from free kicks and corners is a simple one - give it to Beteke. I just liked his invention.

 

 

In fairness, Ramsey credited his staff for the tactical advice to switch up in the second half. 

[Dodgyknees]

We deserved the win, and could easily have won by more.

[terrytini]

I need to get one off my chest....

I've read several posts regarding " its all benteke", "reliant" etc.....

Well yes.

Just like we rely on the keeper to make saves ffs!

When Van Persia was scoring for fun, or Owen, or Drogba, or whoever, I never heard people say similar things.

It always seems to be the case that when a side outside the top 6 has a goalscorer he is ' saviour' or they ' depend' on him.

Yet if the top sides didn't have a goalscorer they'd no longer be near the top !

Getting Benteke scoring goals was an absolutely vital component and Sherwood has managed it in the blink of an eye.

[useless]

Sherwood said before he came in that at first it would be all about getting the ball to Benteke until we're safe. But he said that going into next season there would a different philosophy in terms of style of play, it's just he can't really afford to implement it at the moment.

[Risso]

 

 

People are just exercising caution. There are plenty of examples of managers coming into teams doing well initially and then it going wrong, Pulis at Albion being a recent example. I think it's a bit early to declare him the future of Aston VIlla and act all indignant if anyone dares to question him.

 

Given the nonsense that some people came out with in the defence of that muppet Lambert, I now find it unbelievable that people can't just enjoy a better manager getting us playing better football which has led to an upturn in results.  Each to their own though I guess.

 

 

Defending Lambert has nothing to do with being cautious about Sherwood, and being cautions doesn't mean you aren't enjoying results. Some people seem to be under the strange illusion that if you liked Lambert you can't like Sherwood, or if you disliked Lambert then you shouldn't dare to criticize Sherwood.

 

 

 

Perhaps.   I retain my suspicions though, that the people who were defending Lambert in the face of the indefensible have some weird hidden agenda.

[Derryvillan]

I remember something similar going from O'Leary to O'Neill.

[useless]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't got an agenda myself, can't even imagine what agenda I could possibly have, and even if I had one it would be pretty pointless because I can't affect anything regarding the management of the club. Everyone wants him to do well.

[darrenm]

Same here. I wanted to stick with Lambert until pretty late because I was concerned about if the alternatives would actually be any better. I had no idea if Sherwood was going to do well or not, I'm ecstatic that he is, and it seems almost too easy to have turned it around so quickly and effectively. Let's hope it continues into next season and we can start looking up the table.

Edited April 12, 2015 by darrenm

[Stevo985]

People are just exercising caution. There are plenty of examples of managers coming into teams doing well initially and then it going wrong, Pulis at Albion being a recent example. I think it's a bit early to declare him the future of Aston VIlla and act all indignant if anyone dares to question him.

Given the nonsense that some people came out with in the defence of that muppet Lambert, I now find it unbelievable that people can't just enjoy a better manager getting us playing better football which has led to an upturn in results. Each to their own though I guess.

Defending Lambert has nothing to do with being cautious about Sherwood, and being cautions doesn't mean you aren't enjoying results. Some people seem to be under the strange illusion that if you liked Lambert you can't like Sherwood, or if you disliked Lambert then you shouldn't dare to criticize Sherwood.

Perhaps. I retain my suspicions though, that the people who were defending Lambert in the face of the indefensible have some weird hidden agenda.

Ironic