The Tim Sherwood Thread

[TRO]

So what's the excuse for picking all the other players that were also awful but for game after game rather then one game?

I like Jack - he'll be a top talent - but what has he done so far that anyone else hasn't?  From the top of my head, I can remember one goal (Leicester, this season) and one assist (Liverpool, semi-final).  He's had some decent performances and some crap ones.  He's basically been in exactly the same boat as "other players".

I think he'll go on to be a lot better than most of what we currently have, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with protecting a young lad in the early stages of his career.  Lambert (FWIW) managed it pretty perfectly.  Sherwood thrust him in immediately and bigged him up (fair play Timmy) and we get media coverage over the summer and a more drained, less sharp Grealish so far this season.

Playing every minute of every game isn't necessarily for the best when you're a 19 year old kid.

 

                  Andy Gray.....Brian little.....Gary Shaw......Gareth Barry.......Trevor Francis......Wayne Rooney

                   Alan shearer...........

                   If you are good enough, you are old enough.

 

                  

That statement refers to the quality of a player.

Jack is still developing. Yes he is young but he really shouldn't be playing every game at his age, not down to lack of ability, but to preserve him physically and most importantly mentally.

                     it was said.... it doesn't do you much good playing every game at 19......didn't do them much harm

Edited October 22, 2015 by TRO

[bobzy]

So what's the excuse for picking all the other players that were also awful but for game after game rather then one game?

I like Jack - he'll be a top talent - but what has he done so far that anyone else hasn't?  From the top of my head, I can remember one goal (Leicester, this season) and one assist (Liverpool, semi-final).  He's had some decent performances and some crap ones.  He's basically been in exactly the same boat as "other players".

I think he'll go on to be a lot better than most of what we currently have, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with protecting a young lad in the early stages of his career.  Lambert (FWIW) managed it pretty perfectly.  Sherwood thrust him in immediately and bigged him up (fair play Timmy) and we get media coverage over the summer and a more drained, less sharp Grealish so far this season.

Playing every minute of every game isn't necessarily for the best when you're a 19 year old kid.

 

                  Andy Gray.....Brian little.....Gary Shaw......Gareth Barry.......Trevor Francis......Wayne Rooney

                   Alan shearer...........

                   If you are good enough, you are old enough.

 

                  

That statement refers to the quality of a player.

Jack is still developing. Yes he is young but he really shouldn't be playing every game at his age, not down to lack of ability, but to preserve him physically and most importantly mentally.

                     you said it doesn't do you much good playing every game at 19......didn't do them much harm

The physical side of the game (as in, being really fit - not being a thug) is so, so, so much more demanding these days than it was for most of the players you've mentioned.  I can only really comment on 3;

Alan Shearer, Wayne Rooney and Gareth Barry.

I'd have to look up when they became 30-game-a-season players but, in the case of Shearer and Rooney, you're talking about 2 of the best forwards the Premier League has ever seen.  Grealish simply isn't at that level.

[sexbelowsound]

So what's the excuse for picking all the other players that were also awful but for game after game rather then one game?

I like Jack - he'll be a top talent - but what has he done so far that anyone else hasn't?  From the top of my head, I can remember one goal (Leicester, this season) and one assist (Liverpool, semi-final).  He's had some decent performances and some crap ones.  He's basically been in exactly the same boat as "other players".

I think he'll go on to be a lot better than most of what we currently have, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with protecting a young lad in the early stages of his career.  Lambert (FWIW) managed it pretty perfectly.  Sherwood thrust him in immediately and bigged him up (fair play Timmy) and we get media coverage over the summer and a more drained, less sharp Grealish so far this season.

Playing every minute of every game isn't necessarily for the best when you're a 19 year old kid.

 

                  Andy Gray.....Brian little.....Gary Shaw......Gareth Barry.......Trevor Francis......Wayne Rooney

                   Alan shearer...........

                   If you are good enough, you are old enough.

 

                  

That statement refers to the quality of a player.

Jack is still developing. Yes he is young but he really shouldn't be playing every game at his age, not down to lack of ability, but to preserve him physically and most importantly mentally.

                     it was said.... it doesn't do you much good playing every game at 19......didn't do them much harm

Exposure to first team football is something that needs to managed carefully, especially nowadays. I'd suggest that if Wayne Rooney hadn't have been thrown in so early he might well have reached a higher level by the age of 30 than he currently has.

[markavfc40]

Alan Shearer, Wayne Rooney and Gareth Barry.

I'd have to look up when they became 30-game-a-season players but, in the case of Shearer and Rooney, you're talking about 2 of the best forwards the Premier League has ever seen.  Grealish simply isn't at that level.

I can only comment on Gareth Barry but 98/99 season when he was 17 and not 18 until the end of February he made 37 appearances for us almost all of them starting. The following season at 18/19 he played 44 times most likely all of them starting, in 2000/01 at 19/20 he played 42 times.

If your good enough your old enough and that was the case 100 years ago and remains the case today.

[AvfcTheObsession]

Grealish is 20, hardly a kid and I'd expect him to start 30+ games this season for us, I don't consider that too big an ask for him mentally or physically or that it would be 'burning him out'.

[bobzy]

Alan Shearer, Wayne Rooney and Gareth Barry.

I'd have to look up when they became 30-game-a-season players but, in the case of Shearer and Rooney, you're talking about 2 of the best forwards the Premier League has ever seen.  Grealish simply isn't at that level.

 

I can only comment on Gareth Barry but 98/99 season when he was 17 and not 18 until the end of February he made 37 appearances for us almost all of them starting. The following season at 18/19 he played 44 times most likely all of them starting, in 2000/01 at 19/20 he played 42 times.

If your good enough your old enough and that was the case 100 years ago and remains the case today.

The bottom bit isn't the point I was making, but appreciate the Gareth Barry info

[TRO]

I don't know if you can give him massive credit for it as surely anyone would have done the same, but Sherwood is responsible for giving Grealish his starting role. Maybe it was because he was ready, but then again he got to manage Benteke 'at the right time so was lucky' etc etc. I'm not a Sherwood fan but i'm not going to snatch away the small wins he has managed as manager.

that is the danger at present......he has done some weird things I.e. Leicester.....but some of the stuff the derogatory stuff is a figment of some fans imagination. I can only think, that it is manifested from a personal dislike for him and manufactured in to criticism of his work.

it seems, we have the ability to cut slack for a developing player, but not for a developing manager.

we have instances where the previous manager mumbled his way through interviews like a shrinking violet and that was criticised......now we gave one who is cocky and forthright and that too is criticised.

i think managers need far more time with certain elements of their job, some elements take longer than others....but to get the all singing all dancing manager it takes a lot longer than some of us are expecting.

we cannot survive on a constant serving of "manager bounce"

You continually come out with this management zen

Are you saying that you think Sherwood should stay or not?  If yes, and assuming we don't win anytime soon, when would enough be enough for you? Spurs? MC? Everton? Watford? Xmas? Next Season

You were at this yesterday with your "there is a much more intelligent solution" which when challenged you admitted that you didn't know what that would look like

Are you backing Sherwood or do you want him out??

                   

                   you are missing my point entirely, that is clear.

                   Our results are not what any of us want.....that bit is crystal.....the rest isn't so easy to explain.

 

                   We have a relatively inexperienced manager, an inexperienced team and to compound the problem most are from other leagues..... well, it wouldn't be stretching the bounds of compassion to say " can I have a bit of time"

                    I am not close enough to Tim Sherwood or his work at BMH to make the criticisms that some are.....I can only go on results and match day performances from what I have seen in the main its more to do with individual player errors, lack of leadership and lack of mental strength to take responsibility for the task of seeing a game through and securing a win.....that has been letting us down.....that could be more to do with the individual in question than the manager.

                    We could be getting rid of a good  up and coming manager due to the profoundly difficult circumstances we have found ourselves in....he too is developing.

                    I was one of those 99%'s that thought we had bought well in the summer, I must confess ( i have not given up on them) i am having second thoughts about how long this will take.

                    I am not from the camp that, just get anyone in as long as it isn't Sherwood, we HAVE to start developing things and move away from short termism, when it comes to our managers, we need continuity.

                    You challenge me for being nebulous towards Sherwoods position as manager, but that is reflected in so many variables he is having to deal with.

                    I say again, without apology, I don't know enough about what goes on at BMH.....someone who does might observe that he is doing everything that a good manager would do, conversely it could be a pile of poo, which would make my answer to you ...... easy.

                    You, tease me with my line of "intelligent solution" I was referring to the Top Management having the ability to see through smokescreens and Identify a good manager when the have one or not which ever the case maybe.....they must know what is going on behind the scenes and they should act accordingly......sack him or back him.

                    Managers must be held responsible for team results, we all agree on that, but they are not magicians, even the great SAF took a number of years for it to get right, but David Gill Knew what work was being done at carrington, despite the fans being uneasy with results.

                     Sometimes it takes big conkers to back a manager when results are suggesting you are Mad.....but only they will know or should know.

                     I hope I have been able to explain, why I am unsure about his exit or not, on the basis of results alone there would be one simple answer, if only life, even football life was so simple.

                     We haven't exactly been the envy of the football world in our efforts to recruit, players,managers etc.... we need to make that change.

 

Ps                The one thing i will refuse to do is lambast him on his personality and attempt to pass it off as his work......and criticise him for things that are simply conjecture. That for me is unhelpful, when we all want a solution.

                   

Edited October 22, 2015 by TRO

[Isa]

Grealish is 20, hardly a kid and I'd expect him to start 30+ games this season for us, I don't consider that too big an ask for him mentally or physically or that it would be 'burning him out'.

Indeed, the whole 'cotton wool' attitude towards young players is really quite ridiculous. Same sort of thinking that continues to treat players as 'kids' and 'youngsters' even once they are 23/24. Last season it was Grealish shouldn't be thrusted in because the team were struggling and it might 'ruin him' - whatever that was supposed to mean. This season he shouldn't play regularly because he'll burn out. Obviously he isn't going to be the finished article at this stage and inconsistancy comes with that. That's what development is all about and the more games he gets under his belt, the better he'll be for it.

[TRO]

So what's the excuse for picking all the other players that were also awful but for game after game rather then one game?

I like Jack - he'll be a top talent - but what has he done so far that anyone else hasn't?  From the top of my head, I can remember one goal (Leicester, this season) and one assist (Liverpool, semi-final).  He's had some decent performances and some crap ones.  He's basically been in exactly the same boat as "other players".

I think he'll go on to be a lot better than most of what we currently have, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with protecting a young lad in the early stages of his career.  Lambert (FWIW) managed it pretty perfectly.  Sherwood thrust him in immediately and bigged him up (fair play Timmy) and we get media coverage over the summer and a more drained, less sharp Grealish so far this season.

Playing every minute of every game isn't necessarily for the best when you're a 19 year old kid.

 

                  Andy Gray.....Brian little.....Gary Shaw......Gareth Barry.......Trevor Francis......Wayne Rooney

                   Alan shearer...........

                   If you are good enough, you are old enough.

 

                  

That statement refers to the quality of a player.

Jack is still developing. Yes he is young but he really shouldn't be playing every game at his age, not down to lack of ability, but to preserve him physically and most importantly mentally.

                     it was said.... it doesn't do you much good playing every game at 19......didn't do them much harm

Exposure to first team football is something that needs to managed carefully, especially nowadays. I'd suggest that if Wayne Rooney hadn't have been thrown in so early he might well have reached a higher level by the age of 30 than he currently has.

 

                   I appreciate the exposure bit and I also appreciate that all players are human, hence different, I was merely giving examples of young players that have managed the step up in to first team action with aplomb.....so it is possible.

                    Jack Grealish for me, is one of those players that what he does well, he does brilliantly well, he is exciting and is the type of player you would buy a season ticket to watch.

                    to make the grade that some expect him to make, he will need to work on quite a few aspects of his game and some aspects in my view might be mental as much as physical

                     These type of players can win you a game, but what does go sometimes unnoticed they can just as easily lose you a game, through inactivity and lack of concentration, jack for me works well within his limits at the moment, he needs to stretch himself more to achieve the heady heights we all hope for.

 

 

[villa4europe]

Grealish is 20, hardly a kid and I'd expect him to start 30+ games this season for us, I don't consider that too big an ask for him mentally or physically or that it would be 'burning him out'.

 

Indeed, the whole 'cotton wool' attitude towards young players is really quite ridiculous. Same sort of thinking that continues to treat players as 'kids' and 'youngsters' even once they are 23/24. Last season it was Grealish shouldn't be thrusted in because the team were struggling and it might 'ruin him' - whatever that was supposed to mean. This season he shouldn't play regularly because he'll burn out. Obviously he isn't going to be the finished article at this stage and inconsistancy comes with that. That's what development is all about and the more games he gets under his belt, the better he'll be for it.

gary gardner this week...

think its easy to confuse players that are struggling to break through with youngsters, chris herd would be another

reality is though 20 is still young, there arent many 20 year olds playing 30+ games a season in the prem

[srsmithusa]

TRO - appreciate your tone and for the most part, you and I are both prone to a more nuanced view.  But I do have one disagreement with you.  I don't think I need to see or know what's going on at bodymoor heath.  For me, based on what I see on the pitch, too much of the problem is down to a mismatch between the tactic taken, the formation adopted, and the players placed into roles.  A key thing for a manager is to make sure the tactics, formation, and players strengths are aligned.    

Gestede up top with Gil and Grealish carrying the ball into the middle of the pitch is just wrong.  But that was most of the second half (v Stoke, I think).  The tactics, formation, and player selection and/or the player instructions are coming from three different "pages."  I'm oversimplifying, but if you want to beat an opponent with speed, you need Gabby and Sinclair in the game, and you need to instruct them to run the channels.  And you need to tell Gil and Grealish to play the ball over the top into that space.  The player strength, the role they are asked to play and the formation all need to be in concert.  They are not.  we're playing over the top to Gestede, or making crosses to Gabby. (oversimplifying for clarity, not precision) The point is, we never seem to end up on one coherent page.

That's why I'm in the Sherwood out camp.  I'm historically one of the last ones calling for ouster of a manager (or player) but the match day plan is so clearly disjointed that I don't care what he's doing at Bodymoor heath.  All I know is, it's not the right thing(s).  He's showing me that he cannot manage a match.  He can motivate.  He cannot manage.

in his defense, based on last year, i thought he could.  He settled on a tactic based on the strengths of one player (Benteke)  Our clear and often effective plan was to get him the ball for him to "flick" on to a runner nearby, or if deeper, cross the ball into him and let him finish it.  It worked.  But the reason it worked was not just Benteke.  It worked because the player strengths, roles, and formation all aligned into one coherent tactic.   That's a crucial  part of the manager's job, IMO.  It's not happening.

I actually hope he proves me wrong very soon.  I will change my tune if we play with a formation, tactic, player roles, and strategy that are in alignment.  If we do all that and keep losing, then the problem is likely that the players just aren't good enough.

[TRO]

Grealish is 20, hardly a kid and I'd expect him to start 30+ games this season for us, I don't consider that too big an ask for him mentally or physically or that it would be 'burning him out'.

 

Indeed, the whole 'cotton wool' attitude towards young players is really quite ridiculous. Same sort of thinking that continues to treat players as 'kids' and 'youngsters' even once they are 23/24. Last season it was Grealish shouldn't be thrusted in because the team were struggling and it might 'ruin him' - whatever that was supposed to mean. This season he shouldn't play regularly because he'll burn out. Obviously he isn't going to be the finished article at this stage and inconsistancy comes with that. That's what development is all about and the more games he gets under his belt, the better he'll be for it.

                    I have certain fear/ suspicion of too much moddly coddling at BMH.....where are all the characters we should be developing?......of course there has to be a balance, but I don't see any growlers coming through that want THEIR villa to compete, I hear all the local lads being mentioned, but don't see any passion over and above the others that are not local.

                     If I had the talent to be in their position I would be mirroring the attitude / conviction of Shaun teale. I have rarely seen this "local boy" passion that the likes of Alan shearer could muster for his club.

                      Gary Shaw, showed a determination as did John Deehan........where has it all gone?

Edited October 22, 2015 by TRO

[Sam3773]

"It’s about dusting ourselves down and moving on to the next one"

"We go again" was far more punchier and to the point.

[Wainy316]

To be competitive in this league. To survive even. The vast majority of those players have so far shown that they're not up to it.

West Brom are currently outside the relegation zone are very likely to survive this season. Their team in the last game, which they won, was Myhill / Dawson / McAuley / Evans / Brunt / Sessegnon / Fletcher / Yacob / McClean / Rondon / Berahino. 

I don't honestly believe our players are far worse, or that it's absolutely impossible to manage Villa into some better results. 

 

Well two of their wins, scraped 1-0's against us an Sunderland were the result of the luckiest goals ever.  Make no mistake, they are dire, and their luck will run out.

[dn1982]

Jack Grealish at the minute is a left winger but it seems Sherwood  wants to persist playing him as a 10. Gil seems more suited for that role but it's another one of those things that Sherwood doesn't see when virtually everyone else does! Jacks whole career has been as a left winger so you'd think until he finds his feet and is playing well every game you'd play him somewhere he's used to. it can't help the defence either when swapping the back 4 all the time and even swapping the ones who play in front of them. You defend as a team the back four as a unit you only learn how each other play by game time and after 9 games have we picked the same team 2 games running or the same tactics? I don't think we have so its no surprise no one is gelling! 

[TRO]

TRO - appreciate your tone and for the most part, you and I are both prone to a more nuanced view.  But I do have one disagreement with you.  I don't think I need to see or know what's going on at bodymoor heath.  For me, based on what I see on the pitch, too much of the problem is down to a mismatch between the tactic taken, the formation adopted, and the players placed into roles.  A key thing for a manager is to make sure the tactics, formation, and players strengths are aligned.    

Gestede up top with Gil and Grealish carrying the ball into the middle of the pitch is just wrong.  But that was most of the second half (v Stoke, I think).  The tactics, formation, and player selection and/or the player instructions are coming from three different "pages."  I'm oversimplifying, but if you want to beat an opponent with speed, you need Gabby and Sinclair in the game, and you need to instruct them to run the channels.  And you need to tell Gil and Grealish to play the ball over the top into that space.  The player strength, the role they are asked to play and the formation all need to be in concert.  They are not.  we're playing over the top to Gestede, or making crosses to Gabby. (oversimplifying for clarity, not precision) The point is, we never seem to end up on one coherent page.

That's why I'm in the Sherwood out camp.  I'm historically one of the last ones calling for ouster of a manager (or player) but the match day plan is so clearly disjointed that I don't care what he's doing at Bodymoor heath.  All I know is, it's not the right thing(s).  He's showing me that he cannot manage a match.  He can motivate.  He cannot manage.

in his defense, based on last year, i thought he could.  He settled on a tactic based on the strengths of one player (Benteke)  Our clear and often effective plan was to get him the ball for him to "flick" on to a runner nearby, or if deeper, cross the ball into him and let him finish it.  It worked.  But the reason it worked was not just Benteke.  It worked because the player strengths, roles, and formation all aligned into one coherent tactic.   That's a crucial  part of the manager's job, IMO.  It's not happening.

I actually hope he proves me wrong very soon.  I will change my tune if we play with a formation, tactic, player roles, and strategy that are in alignment.  If we do all that and keep losing, then the problem is likely that the players just aren't good enough.

                  I appreciate, your comments and I understand where you are coming from.

                   I have to say I am not unequivocally defending him.

                    I also appreciate there is more to it than BMH.....but where I am struggling is that he is doing what you suggested....playing gabby (before injury) and Sinclair for their pace, but they simply make no consistent impact, so he try's other things.....at present he seems to have an inconsistent bunch that he can't rely on.

[andym]

I watched Stoke vs Swansea on monday and saw a midfield pairing of Charlie Adam and Glenn Wheelan control the game. Leicester regularly play Morgan, Huth, Simpson, Schlupp, Drinkwater, Vardy. Palace play Dann, Hangeland, Delaney, Gayle, McArthur, Puncheon. I see players such as James Collins, Marc Albrighton, Ryan Betrand and Steven Davies, who were deemed not good enough for us, playing well and making a positive impact at their current clubs.

Had we signed any of those players in the summer, i think people would have gone mad. I'm sure we have been linked to a few of them in the not too distant past and the general consensus has been 'not good enough'. 

However, under their respective managers the teams with these players are doing ok, and should comfortably stay up. These managers are able to get the most out of some pretty average players, and their teams look organised, well drilled, are able to maintain concentration and composure. This means as a team they are able to do better than their individual parts would suggest.

Does it look like Tim Sherwood is doing any of that? Does it look like we work on any of these qualities on the training pitch? 

And how many points have we dropped because Sherwood has got it wrong tactically? Palace and Leicester away, the negative approach at Liverpool, a team who were on the ropes spotting them a 2 goal lead, bizarre selection at home to Stoke. There's also the first half Blues line up. Go back to last season and there's the cup final, Southampton away, somehow letting QPR, the worst away side in the league score 3 goals and get a point (chris ramsey made subs that changed the game and tim didnt react).

I suspect that people would give Sherwood more time if it looked like he was learning and improving. But hes not, hes arguably getting worse. The same tactical errors he making this season he was making last season and when he was at Spurs. The slagging off of players - happened last season and at Spurs, the leaks to the press -- happened at Spurs. Hes not going to change.

[gaz711]

Jack Grealish at the minute is a left winger but it seems Sherwood  wants to persist playing him as a 10. Gil seems more suited for that role but it's another one of those things that Sherwood doesn't see when virtually everyone else does! Jacks whole career has been as a left winger so you'd think until he finds his feet and is playing well every game you'd play him somewhere he's used to. it can't help the defence either when swapping the back 4 all the time and even swapping the ones who play in front of them. You defend as a team the back four as a unit you only learn how each other play by game time and after 9 games have we picked the same team 2 games running or the same tactics? I don't think we have so its no surprise no one is gelling! 

Didn't sherwood say in pre season that Gil was his ideal no 10???

[ermie123]

So what's the excuse for picking all the other players that were also awful but for game after game rather then one game?

I like Jack - he'll be a top talent - but what has he done so far that anyone else hasn't?  From the top of my head, I can remember one goal (Leicester, this season) and one assist (Liverpool, semi-final).  He's had some decent performances and some crap ones.  He's basically been in exactly the same boat as "other players".

I think he'll go on to be a lot better than most of what we currently have, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with protecting a young lad in the early stages of his career.  Lambert (FWIW) managed it pretty perfectly.  Sherwood thrust him in immediately and bigged him up (fair play Timmy) and we get media coverage over the summer and a more drained, less sharp Grealish so far this season.

Playing every minute of every game isn't necessarily for the best when you're a 19 year old kid.

 

                  Andy Gray.....Brian little.....Gary Shaw......Gareth Barry.......Trevor Francis......Wayne Rooney

                   Alan shearer...........

                   If you are good enough, you are old enough.

 

                  

That statement refers to the quality of a player.

Jack is still developing. Yes he is young but he really shouldn't be playing every game at his age, not down to lack of ability, but to preserve him physically and most importantly mentally.

                     it was said.... it doesn't do you much good playing every game at 19......didn't do them much harm

Beckam, Scholes, Best, Pele, Osgood, Charlton (both), Maradona, Cruyf. Van Basten, ect ect

[Zatman]

I watched Stoke vs Swansea on monday and saw a midfield pairing of Charlie Adam and Glenn Wheelan control the game. Leicester regularly play Morgan, Huth, Simpson, Schlupp, Drinkwater, Vardy. Palace play Dann, Hangeland, Delaney, Gayle, McArthur, Puncheon. I see players such as James Collins, Marc Albrighton, Ryan Betrand and Steven Davies, who were deemed not good enough for us, playing well and making a positive impact at their current clubs.

I remember the uproar when we were linked with Lennon, Townsend and Huddlestone