The Rémi Garde thread

[New_Jersey_Villa]

8 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Garde's still the man for me. The team seem to be settling, there is discipline in the squad now, (players were getting sent off left right an center previous). I still believe he is doing the best he can with the squad he has. I'm happy he has seen through the likes of Gabby an Grealish, an his attitude and personality are far far better than the gangster wannabe Sherwood.

I'm in agreement. Let's just get behind Garde.

Changing the manger every 20 minutes only works for teams that have huge deep pockets and can buy instant success.

[HanoiVillan]

Yes, people wanting yet another manager change at this point are absolutely delusional. 

[AVTuco]

Not being satisfied with Garde and wanting another manager change are two different things.

[HanoiVillan]

Good job I addressed one and not the other then. 

[AVTuco]

Well done HanoiVillan . Wait, what purpose does my post serve then? It seems very black and white here again, hence my post.

Edited December 27, 2015 by AVTuco

[Stevo985]

Much better than last week, imo.

We played well for more or less the whole game. The 10 minutes before half time were the only time when we looked second best and unfortunately they punished us for that.

The positive is we were clearly the better team and we should have won. The negative is obviously that we didn't win.

It's all too late to save us, bar a miracle, but for me the improvements under Garde are clear as day. We're heading in the right direction but it won't undo the damage done at the start of the season (or due to the recruitment policy)

Obviously the next step is to turn these good performances into wins for Garde. But I think he's looking good.

[Stevo985]

19 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

 

Got it spot on today, I thought. Our best performance of the season.

This.

Last week I criticised him because I felt the game could have been won with some changes.

Not this week. We were well on top. We created things throughout the whole game and we did enough to win.

No, we didn't win and that's the negative you can take from it, but it's the first time this season where I've felt we've played the whole game well and that we were the better team for the whole game.

[Butterfingers]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The choice was to buy players to fit a system. We didn't, we bought players that had good market value and high potential, but they weren't bought to fit a particular system, probably because Sherwood couldn't think of one (or, being more charitable, wasn't experienced enough to have settled on a particular system). 

Of course we bought players to fit a system-The problem was that most of them were never going to hit the ground running. Coupled with the rubbish left at the club, along with the benefit of hindsight, we were an accident waiting to happen.

We finished 17th last season and lost our 4 best outfield players to clubs like Man City, Liverpool & Everton. We were never going to replace them in a million years, like for like-No player of that standard would want to join a club who had been so dire for the past few seasons. We can't even compete with teams like Stoke in the transfer market.

 

[Zatman]

what we need now is to stay positive after last 2 games and build on it. Said it before if we are to go down we better at least fight for every last point and credit to players they have done that in last 2 games

For tomorrow id go with team that started yesterday except replace Sanchez with Jack

[thunderball]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

what we need now is to stay positive after last 2 games and build on it. Said it before if we are to go down we better at least fight for every last point and credit to players they have done that in last 2 games

For tomorrow id go with team that started yesterday except replace Sanchez with Jack

I doubt very much we will see Jack. Jack needs to understand this is serious business not his soap opera.

[The Fun Factory]

2 hours ago, Butterfingers said:

Of course we bought players to fit a system-The problem was that most of them were never going to hit the ground running. Coupled with the rubbish left at the club, along with the benefit of hindsight, we were an accident waiting to happen.

We finished 17th last season and lost our 4 best outfield players to clubs like Man City, Liverpool & Everton. We were never going to replace them in a million years, like for like-No player of that standard would want to join a club who had been so dire for the past few seasons. We can't even compete with teams like Stoke in the transfer market.

 

Well that's not really true is it, Stoke's net spend in the summer was £3 million,ours was £8 million.They might have spent it better than us though. We are a net spending club at present after the cost cutting years, but the team has not gelled at all yet.

[Butterfingers]

Net spends do not constitute being able to compete.

Not many players are going to chose us ahead of Stoke for football reasons and I wouldn't be surprised if they pay more either. This is why we can't compete with teams such as Stoke.

[mikeyp102]

10 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Well that's not really true is it, Stoke's net spend in the summer was £3 million,ours was £8 million.They might have spent it better than us though. We are a net spending club at present after the cost cutting years, but the team has not gelled at all yet.

Don't think that's true, from a brief look they sold  approx £15m of players and signed Joselu and Shaqiri for £20m plus another 2 undisclosed which would probably be at least the same as us.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Butterfingers said:

Of course we bought players to fit a system-The problem was that most of them were never going to hit the ground running. Coupled with the rubbish left at the club, along with the benefit of hindsight, we were an accident waiting to happen.

We finished 17th last season and lost our 4 best outfield players to clubs like Man City, Liverpool & Everton. We were never going to replace them in a million years, like for like-No player of that standard would want to join a club who had been so dire for the past few seasons. We can't even compete with teams like Stoke in the transfer market.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm really going to have to push back on your claim that they were bought for a system. They looked a fairly random collection in the summer, if promising, and this is most obvious in the case of Gestede, whose main attribute was known - even at the beginning of the season - to be heading in crosses, yet we failed to sign a single winger and began the season playing with our only width provided by full backs, only one of whom is any good at crossing. I would also point out that we changed formation numerous times within the first few weeks of the season. There really wasn't a single system people were bought to fit. 

[Zatman]

Yeah it was a scattergun approachto transfers with no real plan in mind

2 goalkeepers

4 defenders

3 widemen

2 centre midfielders

1 striker

[Butterfingers]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm sorry, but I'm really going to have to push back on your claim that they were bought for a system. They looked a fairly random collection in the summer, if promising, and this is most obvious in the case of Gestede, whose main attribute was known - even at the beginning of the season - to be heading in crosses, yet we failed to sign a single winger and began the season playing with our only width provided by full backs, only one of whom is any good at crossing. I would also point out that we changed formation numerous times within the first few weeks of the season. There really wasn't a single system people were bought to fit. 

We haven't played with wingers since MON was here-What makes you think that we should have bought one in the summer?

We needed a left back, we bought Amavi

We needed two central midfielders to replace Delph & Cleverley-We bought Gana & Jordan V

We needed strikers to replace Weiman & Benteke-We bought Gestede & Jordan A

We needed a central defender to replace Vlaar-We bought Richards

Everybody was quite pleased with our summer signings. I don't recall anyone at the time complaining that they were a fairly random collection. Sherwood stated that it was his intention to use different formations-He was quite open about this. For most of last season, managers were slaughtered on here for not changing formations. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

We haven't played with wingers since MON was here-What makes you think that we should have bought one in the summer? [1]

We needed a left back, we bought Amavi

We needed two central midfielders to replace Delph & Cleverley-We bought Gana & Jordan V

We needed strikers to replace Weiman & Benteke-We bought Gestede & Jordan A

We needed a central defender to replace Vlaar-We bought Richards [2]

Everybody was quite pleased with our summer signings. I don't recall anyone at the time complaining that they were a fairly random collection. Sherwood stated that it was his intention to use different formations-He was quite open about this [3]. For most of last season, managers were slaughtered on here for not changing formations. Its damned if you do, damned if you don't [4]

 

1] I could care less if we play with wingers. But if you sign a beanpole striker who can't play with his feet, but can score with his head, then playing with people who can cross the ball is self-evidently important. I don't really see why this is so hard to comprehend - Gestede clearly didn't fit several different systems used this season. Complaints that we never cross the ball or play to his strengths make up like 50% of the posts in his thread.

2] You're right, we replaced positions. But that doesn't mean we had a particular system in mind, just that we were light in those positions. As I said before - and as you acknowledge - we changed formation regularly. 

3] Then we didn't have a particular system in mind? You're really acknowledging my point here. 

4] No, it's damned if you lose, praised if you win. 

[Butterfingers]

1. Hardly any teams play with wingers these days-Crosses invariably come from the attacking full backs

2. So they weren't random signings then

3. Yes-We had a particular system-It was 4-3-3. In some games it was played as 3-5-2 but in essence, they were both reliant on crosses coming in from the full backs. One was slightly more offensive than the other, that was all.

4. Well you won't be doing much praising then, it doesn't matter who the manager is-Whilst we have a chairman who is not committed to the club, things will never be different.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

What choice did we have though?

Vlaar, Cleverley, Delph, Benteke all deserted us.

We had to start from scratch as we had just lost pour 4 best players. Those 4 probably carried the others to a fair extent. & we certainly didn't have a squad in place to compete in the league. In hindsight, it was an impossible ask to pool half the old side with half a side of newcomers and expect to hit the ground running-Especially as most of the newcomers hadn't played in the PL before.

The choice was to buy players to fit a system. We didn't, we bought players that had good market value and high potential, but they weren't bought to fit a particular system, probably because Sherwood couldn't think of one (or, being more charitable, wasn't experienced enough to have settled on a particular system). 

We needed somebody at the helm with a clear vision of what that system might be. Instead we had Tim Sherwood. I believe Tom Fox when he says that Sherwood had final say in all of our signings and it was pretty clear at the time that he had met every single one of them. In many cases flying out to them.

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, Butterfingers said:

1. Hardly any teams play with wingers these days-Crosses invariably come from the attacking full backs

2. So they weren't random signings then

3. Yes-We had a particular system-It was 4-3-3. In some games it was played as 3-5-2 but in essence, they were both reliant on crosses coming in from the full backs. One was slightly more offensive than the other, that was all.

4. Well you won't be doing much praising then, it doesn't matter who the manager is-Whilst we have a chairman who is not committed to the club, things will never be different.

I typed out another response, but deleted it. I've failed to convince you, you've failed to convince me. Others can make their own minds up.