The Tim Sherwood Thread

[BOF]

Just one quick question, does anybody trust him to be able to sort out our defensive issues? I don't because I don't think he knows how and I don't think he has the right assistants to help him.

Sorting out our defensive issues starts with the right personnel.  If he persists with Lescott AND Lescott doesn't improve in that time, then it doesn't bode well.  Let's put it this way.  It's still too early for me to say that I don't trust him to sort it out.  We've still not seen enough of what he does with the squad and he is still learning.

As long as we don't get cut adrift in the interim, I'd give him until Christmas.

[bobzy]

Well, I'd love to see a 4-2-3-1 but it depends whether the likes of Gil/Grealish/Traore have the defensive work rate for it to work. Still worth a go though!

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?

[AntrimBlack]

Westwood is a holding midfielder, Veretout is not. Not sure why people keep pitting them against each other. I'd have Westwood holding wth Veretout and Gana just in front, either side of him.

Westwood and Veretout can sit alongside each other and I think they'd need to (neither are destructive players) but that's absolutely fine.  Gueye is the main midfield "force" now and he looks a good player (despite crap performance against Liverpool - but that was understandable).

Agreed they are the 3 we should be playing but Westwood and Veretout need to protect the back 4.  Let Gueye break and give the ball to Grealish/Gil/Traore/Gabby/Sinclair/Gestede (I'm sure I've missed someone here) or whichever combination of those lot that we play as "attacking".

Ayew.

 

[useless]

Adama at wing-back would be a waste of his attacking talents. We need him around the opposition's box as much as possible.

Edited September 29, 2015 by useless

[GeordieVillan]

Well, I'd love to see a 4-2-3-1 but it depends whether the likes of Gil/Grealish/Traore have the defensive work rate for it to work. Still worth a go though!

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!

[GeordieVillan]

Adama at wing-back would be a waste of his attacking talents. We need him around the opposition's box as much as possible.

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.

[AshVilla]

Anything less than 3 points the weekend really is unacceptable

We need to start getting maximum points from our games if we want to stay in this division

Stoke at home is a winnable game they are not Barcelona

[sexbelowsound]

Adama at wing-back would be a waste of his attacking talents. We need him around the opposition's box as much as possible.

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.  

[bobzy]

Anything less than 3 points the weekend really is unacceptable

We need to start getting maximum points from our games if we want to stay in this division

Stoke at home is a winnable game they are not Barcelona

Completely depends on how the game goes.

If Stoke play an absolute blinder then a draw becomes acceptable.

Every game in the Premier League is winnable to some extent.  All depends on how they go.  Certainly not "unacceptable" to lose a game in this league.  **** hell.

[useless]

A draw this weekend is completely unacceptable, If Stoke play an absolute blinder, it's because we've allowed them to which isn't good enough. Not with how important the game is and knowing the fixtures we have to come.

[bobzy]

A draw this weekend is completely unacceptable, If Stoke play an absolute blinder, it's because we've allowed them to which isn't good enough. Not with how important the game is and knowing the fixtures we have to come.

Garbage.

Stoke are a better side than us.  If they play a blinder, they play a blinder.  West Ham have done so against Arsenal and Man City but come unstuck at home to Norwich.  These things happen.

"Completely unacceptable" - **** off.  Does my head in.

[jon_c]

I wouldn't start all three anyway, rotating them gives up options on the bench, and keeps them fresher throughout the season.

[useless]

Stoke are Stoke not Barcelona, it's not as if, if they play well we couldn't possibly hope to compete. And they might be a better side than us but not by much, If they play a 'blinder' it's because we haven't played our part in stopping them doing so.

[Stevo985]

A draw this weekend is completely unacceptable, If Stoke play an absolute blinder, it's because we've allowed them to which isn't good enough. Not with how important the game is and knowing the fixtures we have to come.

Garbage.

Stoke are a better side than us.  If they play a blinder, they play a blinder.  West Ham have done so against Arsenal and Man City but come unstuck at home to Norwich.  These things happen.

"Completely unacceptable" - **** off.  Does my head in.

It's not completely unacceptable to not beat Stoke.

But it would be a very bad result in the context of the next few weeks. The fixtures after Stoke are awful.

[useless]

As a stand alone result it wouldn't be completely unacceptable, but in the context of the results we've had so far and the fixtures we have to come, then I think it is. And I'd hope that that's what Sherwood is telling the players too.

[bobzy]

A draw this weekend is completely unacceptable, If Stoke play an absolute blinder, it's because we've allowed them to which isn't good enough. Not with how important the game is and knowing the fixtures we have to come.

Garbage.

Stoke are a better side than us.  If they play a blinder, they play a blinder.  West Ham have done so against Arsenal and Man City but come unstuck at home to Norwich.  These things happen.

"Completely unacceptable" - **** off.  Does my head in.

It's not completely unacceptable to not beat Stoke.

But it would be a very bad result in the context of the next few weeks. The fixtures after Stoke are awful.

Of course.  It's one of the more winnable games coming up, for sure.

[troon_villan]

As a stand alone result it wouldn't be completely unacceptable, but in the context of the results we've had so far and the fixtures we have to come, then I think it is. And I'd hope that that's what Sherwood is telling the players too.

In the context of recent results, we're a team in very poor form. There's no expectations on us (outwith the villa community).

[Guest av1]

I think in order to stay up you need to be winning homes games against those teams your sharing the bottom half of the table with.

Given that the likes of Sunderland and WBA have already left B6 with points, the pressure builds and game games like Stoke at home do almost become must win. We have had a few games I would have expected more from, we need to start winning these games to give the fans and more importantly the players belief. 

Would anything less than 3 points be unacceptable? I'd maybe not go that far, but if we add Stoke into that list with WBA and Sunderland, teams who we have failed to beat at home then we really do face a struggle to stay up, because quite frankly I don't see where the points are coming from. 

[Woodytom]

Nigel pearson?

I want a gobshite that really did save a team from oblivion. 

[Richard]

Just one quick question, does anybody trust him to be able to sort out our defensive issues? I don't because I don't think he knows how and I don't think he has the right assistants to help him.

Sorting out our defensive issues starts with the right personnel.  If he persists with Lescott AND Lescott doesn't improve in that time, then it doesn't bode well.  Let's put it this way.  It's still too early for me to say that I don't trust him to sort it out.  We've still not seen enough of what he does with the squad and he is still learning.

As long as we don't get cut adrift in the interim, I'd give him until Christmas.

We'll be adrift by then given the fixtures we have.  It puts pressure on other more winnable games before and after the run of horrendous fixtures and I'm not convinced he and therefore the squad are able to cope with that pressure such that the winnable games then become difficult to win.