The Tim Sherwood Thread

[Stevo985]

 

How should I know-I wasn't in there. Do you think they all got their mobiles out & started taking selfies or playing games? Of course there was a re-think at half time. Give the bloke a bit of credit ffs. Do you think he just told them to catty on regardless?

 

 

The 2nd goal a few minutes in changed it anyway so whatever was said, needed to be changed again.

 

Not every team who goes in 0-1 at half time suddenly changes for the 2nd half you know.

 

You're all over the place.

 

You've said they have a re-think at half time, but then you end your post saying they didn't change?

 

 

If they had a re-think at half time it didn't show, because they came out and played exactly the same way.

 

And no not every team 1-0 down changes things. There are a million different scenarios where you wouldn't change anything in that situation.

but one of those scenarios is not being completely humped in a cup final when it's clear absolutely nothing you've done in the game has worked.

[HanoiVillan]

EDIT: double post 

Edited June 1, 2015 by HanoiVillan

[sidcowans21]

People can say what they want about Sherwood, but i tell you something, he has given me more pleasure in the short space of time he has been here than Lambert ever did (ohhh matron!) and got me excited about watching Villa again. I think Southampton was just a freak result. Cant understand why alot of people were going over the top about the Burnley result. Obviously players didnt want to get injured for the final.

 

Yes, i was disappointed Saturday, but i knew it was going to be alot harder than Liverpool, Arsenal are diiferent class to them and compare the amount spent on our squad and theirs. It's a totally different league. Personally im looking forward to next season and Sherwood's first transfer signings. If Lambert was here, we would now be in the Championship and higly doubt we would have made the FA Cup Final under him.

 

So, thanks Tim for keeping us up which is what his remit was and getting us to a final.

[Butterfingers]

 

 

 

And while I'm on one, can you people please,please stop talking about this bloody high line at Southampton. We set up 3 of the goals on a plate for them, it had nothing to do with where the defenders were holding their line.

 

You're making yourself look silly now.

 

If you can't see the high line at Southampton was a problem then you need to watch the game again.

 

Take out the goals if you like. The high line was a problem numerous times before they scored their first goal.

 

I don't blame Sherwood for that, fwiw.

 

Look at the goals and then tell me who looks silly.

 

The first one is from a goal kick-Where would you expect the defence to hold their line?

 

The second is a fantastic through ball played by Vlaar which Given chickens out of despite being on what? £30k a week

 

The third, they get the ball deep in their own half, our defenders start on the half way line (correctly) 2 drop but the 2 nearest the ball commit and don't get the ball.

 

The 4th, the striker is totally unmarked and runs between the 2 defenders

 

The 5th, Bacuna plays a hospital ball that is intercepted and a long shot scores

 

The 6th was a cross that was not defended and the striker had a simple tap in.

 

It really is you who needs to stop making yourself look silly, thinking you see things that Sherwood doesn't.

 

Go & watch those goals again and tell me that the defence should have been 10 yards back for any of them.

[sexbelowsound]

If we can't be critical of an embarrassing performance in an F.A Cup final, regardless of how long the manager has been here, then I'm not sure when we can be critical.

[Butterfingers]

 

 

How should I know-I wasn't in there. Do you think they all got their mobiles out & started taking selfies or playing games? Of course there was a re-think at half time. Give the bloke a bit of credit ffs. Do you think he just told them to catty on regardless?

 

 

The 2nd goal a few minutes in changed it anyway so whatever was said, needed to be changed again.

 

Not every team who goes in 0-1 at half time suddenly changes for the 2nd half you know.

 

You're all over the place.

 

You've said they have a re-think at half time, but then you end your post saying they didn't change?

 

 

If they had a re-think at half time it didn't show, because they came out and played exactly the same way.

 

And no not every team 1-0 down changes things. There are a million different scenarios where you wouldn't change anything in that situation.

but one of those scenarios is not being completely humped in a cup final when it's clear absolutely nothing you've done in the game has worked.

 

All over the place? I don't think so.

 

How can you know what the plan was after half time when the goal obviously changed things again?

 

Do you think those 5 mins were enough to form an opinion on how we were set up? I take my hat off to you if you do-Your in the wrong job

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

 

And while I'm on one, can you people please,please stop talking about this bloody high line at Southampton. We set up 3 of the goals on a plate for them, it had nothing to do with where the defenders were holding their line.

 

You're making yourself look silly now.

 

If you can't see the high line at Southampton was a problem then you need to watch the game again.

 

Take out the goals if you like. The high line was a problem numerous times before they scored their first goal.

 

I don't blame Sherwood for that, fwiw.

 

Look at the goals and then tell me who looks silly.

 

 

Nah I'm sure you're right though. I'm sure in a game where we lost 6-1 Sherwood couldn't have done anything differently.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Stevo985

[snowychap]

Some of your options there are in complete contrast with each other...

That's because he's trying to give a number of options, i.e. a variety of choices.

...and all with the benefit of hindsight.

How would you like him (or anyone else) to answer a question you've posed about how they would do something different in an event that happened in the past?

 

I'm guessing, though, that Stevo also thought that there needed to be changes at the time that the game was going on (what with him saying that he and those around him thought it wasn't working when the match was going on).

The hindsight counter to criticism or critical analysis post event only really works if there weren't other options available and that people weren't discussing that something needed to be done differently (even if they may not have been discussing those options in detail at the time).

Edited June 1, 2015 by snowychap

[Eames]

 

 

 

 

And while I'm on one, can you people please,please stop talking about this bloody high line at Southampton. We set up 3 of the goals on a plate for them, it had nothing to do with where the defenders were holding their line.

 

You're making yourself look silly now.

 

If you can't see the high line at Southampton was a problem then you need to watch the game again.

 

Take out the goals if you like. The high line was a problem numerous times before they scored their first goal.

 

I don't blame Sherwood for that, fwiw.

 

Look at the goals and then tell me who looks silly.

 

The first one is from a goal kick-Where would you expect the defence to hold their line?

 

The second is a fantastic through ball played by Vlaar which Given chickens out of despite being on what? £30k a week

 

The third, they get the ball deep in their own half, our defenders start on the half way line (correctly) 2 drop but the 2 nearest the ball commit and don't get the ball.

 

The 4th, the striker is totally unmarked and runs between the 2 defenders

 

The 5th, Bacuna plays a hospital ball that is intercepted and a long shot scores

 

The 6th was a cross that was not defended and the striker had a simple tap in.

 

It really is you who needs to stop making yourself look silly, thinking you see things that Sherwood doesn't.

 

Go & watch those goals again and tell me that the defence should have been 10 yards back for any of them.

 

Every single commentator/pundit/journo that watched that match said the same thing. "Villa's high line was suicidal" 

[Butterfingers]

 

Some of your options there are in complete contrast with each other and all with the benefit of hindsight.

So? The whole point is that they are in contrast with each other. They're all different. They show different approaches we might have taken. I'm not suggesting we did them all. But trying anything different would have been nice

Yes it's with the benefit of hindsight. Managers get paid to be able to see things that the rest of us only see with hindsight.

What didn't require hindsight was being sat there after half an hour with everyone around me saying it wasn't working. It didn't take hindsight to realise something needed to change. But nothing did

 

 

In hindsight, I think we would have stood a better chance parking the bus and gambling on a breakaway or pens. I believed in the team though and would have more or less gone with what was picked, other than bring in Guzan and Bacuna.

 

The key to it for me were the timing of the goals. I probably wouldn't have changed much first half at 0-0 and concentrated on getting to HT. TS did this which obviously meant few attacks. At 0-0, I would probably have bought Sanchez on for either N'Zog or Grealish and would have considered the best way of winning was to park the bus. It was pointless trying to trade blows with Arsenal in that form. As it was, we were 1-0 down so the obvious choice was Gabby. In fact it really was our only plan b, looking at the bench. Whatever change (if any) that was made at half time didn't matter because they scored so soon after the break. Having being outplayed, it didn't matter what we did. But Gabby & Bacuna were the obvious ones.

So basically what you're saying here is there's quite a bit that could have been done differently.

So why are you getting so annoyed at people thinking we should have changed things when you appear to agree?

 

Not sure which part of my post that you failed to understand but the only thing that I said could be done differently was go 4-4-2 which is what he did.

[Stevo985]

 

 

How can you know what the plan was after half time when the goal obviously changed things again?

 

Do you think those 5 mins were enough to form an opinion on how we were set up? I take my hat off to you if you do-Your in the wrong job

 

Because I watched the game and we played exactly the same way for 90 minutes.

 

That 5 minutes was long enough to tell that the formation or the personnel hadn't changed one bit.

[Stevo985]

 

 

Some of your options there are in complete contrast with each other and all with the benefit of hindsight.

So? The whole point is that they are in contrast with each other. They're all different. They show different approaches we might have taken. I'm not suggesting we did them all. But trying anything different would have been nice

Yes it's with the benefit of hindsight. Managers get paid to be able to see things that the rest of us only see with hindsight.

What didn't require hindsight was being sat there after half an hour with everyone around me saying it wasn't working. It didn't take hindsight to realise something needed to change. But nothing did

 

 

In hindsight, I think we would have stood a better chance parking the bus and gambling on a breakaway or pens. I believed in the team though and would have more or less gone with what was picked, other than bring in Guzan and Bacuna.

 

The key to it for me were the timing of the goals. I probably wouldn't have changed much first half at 0-0 and concentrated on getting to HT. TS did this which obviously meant few attacks. At 0-0, I would probably have bought Sanchez on for either N'Zog or Grealish and would have considered the best way of winning was to park the bus. It was pointless trying to trade blows with Arsenal in that form. As it was, we were 1-0 down so the obvious choice was Gabby. In fact it really was our only plan b, looking at the bench. Whatever change (if any) that was made at half time didn't matter because they scored so soon after the break. Having being outplayed, it didn't matter what we did. But Gabby & Bacuna were the obvious ones.

So basically what you're saying here is there's quite a bit that could have been done differently.

So why are you getting so annoyed at people thinking we should have changed things when you appear to agree?

 

Not sure which part of my post that you failed to understand but the only thing that I said could be done differently was go 4-4-2 which is what he did.

 

I've bolded three for you.

All three of those things could have been done without switching to 4-4-2

[Butterfingers]

 

 

 

 

 

And while I'm on one, can you people please,please stop talking about this bloody high line at Southampton. We set up 3 of the goals on a plate for them, it had nothing to do with where the defenders were holding their line.

 

You're making yourself look silly now.

 

If you can't see the high line at Southampton was a problem then you need to watch the game again.

 

Take out the goals if you like. The high line was a problem numerous times before they scored their first goal.

 

I don't blame Sherwood for that, fwiw.

 

Look at the goals and then tell me who looks silly.

 

The first one is from a goal kick-Where would you expect the defence to hold their line?

 

The second is a fantastic through ball played by Vlaar which Given chickens out of despite being on what? £30k a week

 

The third, they get the ball deep in their own half, our defenders start on the half way line (correctly) 2 drop but the 2 nearest the ball commit and don't get the ball.

 

The 4th, the striker is totally unmarked and runs between the 2 defenders

 

The 5th, Bacuna plays a hospital ball that is intercepted and a long shot scores

 

The 6th was a cross that was not defended and the striker had a simple tap in.

 

It really is you who needs to stop making yourself look silly, thinking you see things that Sherwood doesn't.

 

Go & watch those goals again and tell me that the defence should have been 10 yards back for any of them.

 

Every single commentator/pundit/journo that watched that match said the same thing. "Villa's high line was suicidal" 

 

Who cares what commentators think? They only influence idiots who copy what they are saying because they don't have anything of their own to say

 

None of the goals were due to a high line, despite what your beloved commentators say.

 

They were down to the most atrocious, abysmal defending that I've ever witnessed from a Villa side and I've been watching them for 40 years

[Butterfingers]

 

 

 

Some of your options there are in complete contrast with each other and all with the benefit of hindsight.

So? The whole point is that they are in contrast with each other. They're all different. They show different approaches we might have taken. I'm not suggesting we did them all. But trying anything different would have been nice

Yes it's with the benefit of hindsight. Managers get paid to be able to see things that the rest of us only see with hindsight.

What didn't require hindsight was being sat there after half an hour with everyone around me saying it wasn't working. It didn't take hindsight to realise something needed to change. But nothing did

 

 

In hindsight, I think we would have stood a better chance parking the bus and gambling on a breakaway or pens. I believed in the team though and would have more or less gone with what was picked, other than bring in Guzan and Bacuna.

 

The key to it for me were the timing of the goals. I probably wouldn't have changed much first half at 0-0 and concentrated on getting to HT. TS did this which obviously meant few attacks. At 0-0, I would probably have bought Sanchez on for either N'Zog or Grealish and would have considered the best way of winning was to park the bus. It was pointless trying to trade blows with Arsenal in that form. As it was, we were 1-0 down so the obvious choice was Gabby. In fact it really was our only plan b, looking at the bench. Whatever change (if any) that was made at half time didn't matter because they scored so soon after the break. Having being outplayed, it didn't matter what we did. But Gabby & Bacuna were the obvious ones.

So basically what you're saying here is there's quite a bit that could have been done differently.

So why are you getting so annoyed at people thinking we should have changed things when you appear to agree?

 

Not sure which part of my post that you failed to understand but the only thing that I said could be done differently was go 4-4-2 which is what he did.

 

I've bolded three for you.

All three of those things could have been done without switching to 4-4-2

 

Yet again, you are either unwilling or unable to read my post properly.

 

The scenarios posted were assuming we were 0-0 at half time. In case you've forgotten, we were 0-1 down at half time.

[Butterfingers]

 

 

 

How can you know what the plan was after half time when the goal obviously changed things again?

 

Do you think those 5 mins were enough to form an opinion on how we were set up? I take my hat off to you if you do-Your in the wrong job

 

Because I watched the game and we played exactly the same way for 90 minutes.

 

That 5 minutes was long enough to tell that the formation or the personnel hadn't changed one bit.

 

Don't talk like an idiot. If that was the case, we were trying for a 0-1 with 45 mins of the game left.

 

Of course things would have changed once we were 0-1 down-It doesn't mean to say we should have been sending the keeper up for corners.

[SeanO]

I'm still not sure about Sherwood, I mean I want to believe but some of his decisions baffle me.

 

Given over Guzan?

 

Not playing Gil but using CNZ?

 

Playing Okore and Vlaar together again after the Southampton debacle? Both are right side center backs, against Southampton he didn't have much choice but Baker was fit for the final which might have made a better balance in defence.

 

Dropping Bacuna for Hutton?

 

Hutton playing LB when Cisskho is apparently fit?

 

Yeah I'm sure you could make valid points/reasons for each of these but no matter what anyone say's I can't shake the feeling that Sherwood is winging it and we are in the sh...mire.

[Eames]

 

 

 

 

How can you know what the plan was after half time when the goal obviously changed things again?

 

Do you think those 5 mins were enough to form an opinion on how we were set up? I take my hat off to you if you do-Your in the wrong job

 

Because I watched the game and we played exactly the same way for 90 minutes.

 

That 5 minutes was long enough to tell that the formation or the personnel hadn't changed one bit.

 

Don't talk like an idiot. If that was the case, we were trying for a 0-1 with 45 mins of the game left.

 

Of course things would have changed once we were 0-1 down-It doesn't mean to say we should have been sending the keeper up for corners.

 

Has Stevo or anyone else suggested that then? Must have missed that bit. 

[Stevo985]

I haven't goaded him. I've tried to have a debate with him, which is difficult with the constant moving of the goalposts.

 

If it's come across as goading it wasn't my intention. Possibly my posts reflected my frustration. Apologies if so.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Stevo985

[Richard]

I'm still not sure about Sherwood, I mean I want to believe but some of his decisions baffle me.

 

Given over Guzan?

 

Not playing Gil but using CNZ?

 

Playing Okore and Vlaar together again after the Southampton debacle? Both are right side center backs, against Southampton he didn't have much choice but Baker was fit for the final which might have made a better balance in defence.

 

Dropping Bacuna for Hutton?

 

Hutton playing LB when Cisskho is apparently fit?

 

Yeah I'm sure you could make valid points/reasons for each of these but no matter what anyone say's I can't shake the feeling that Sherwood is winging it and we are in the sh...mire.

spot on for me

[hippo]

 

I'm still not sure about Sherwood, I mean I want to believe but some of his decisions baffle me.

 

Given over Guzan?

 

Not playing Gil but using CNZ?

 

Playing Okore and Vlaar together again after the Southampton debacle? Both are right side center backs, against Southampton he didn't have much choice but Baker was fit for the final which might have made a better balance in defence.

 

Dropping Bacuna for Hutton?

 

Hutton playing LB when Cisskho is apparently fit?

 

Yeah I'm sure you could make valid points/reasons for each of these but no matter what anyone say's I can't shake the feeling that Sherwood is winging it and we are in the sh...mire.

spot on for me

 

 

aye me to.

 

He kept us up.

 

But I have serious misgivings about him for next season.