The Rémi Garde thread

[Dr_Pangloss]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

'They're men and they're professional footballers which means they can't be affected by things mentally' is an attitude that just shows why people don't talk about their mental state openly.

Especially the 'men' part. 

I wouldn't consider playing under Sherwood enough to cause seemingly irreparable damage. You'd have a point if something genuinely bad would have happened to these players, but obviously you're not focusing on the actual context of my post and just cherry picking a sentence to make a totally irrelevant point to the discussion.

[Demitri_C]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

'They're men and they're professional footballers which means they can't be affected by things mentally' is an attitude that just shows why people don't talk about their mental state openly.

Especially the 'men' part. 

You say that but what about the normal people who have mroe stressful jobs and get on with it. these guys are paid a significant amount of money yet they have little to now drive and cant be bothered. Just complete losers

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, av1 said:

No you can't, but you can blame Lerner for employing him in the first place. After watching his short stint at spurs, 90% of us knew it would end in tears. 

Every problem at the club is a result of his poor running of the club.

IMO.

Cant disagree with that, but you cant blame lerner for the mentality of the players. thats the managers role. I strongly believe Sherwood and Wilkins are responsible for that

[bobzy]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

'They're men and they're professional footballers which means they can't be affected by things mentally' is an attitude that just shows why people don't talk about their mental state openly.

Especially the 'men' part. 

I agree, but I don't accept that Tim Sherwood has somehow made every player in the Villa team come out with a huge mental issue as a result of his managerial work.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

You say that but what about the normal people who have mroe stressful jobs and get on with it. these guys are paid a significant amount of money yet they have little to now drive and cant be bothered. Just complete losers

I have no problem with that statement. I wasn't disputing that and I would agree with it.

I had an issue with 'they're men, they should just get on with it' attitude to mental state that makes it taboo for men to talk about mental illness. Way off topic, but yeah.

[DCJonah]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I find it amazing that you're still talking about one post that about 8 people liked almost 9 months later. That's serious dedication, fair play. Most people would have stopped caring months ago.

I'm amazed its still mentioned as just one quote. That's dedication to ignore all the criticism while we were winning games. If you say it enough though people will believe you. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, bobzy said:

I agree, but I don't accept that Tim Sherwood has somehow made every player in the Villa team come out with a huge mental issue as a result of his managerial work.

I only had issue with the 'men' comment (as I explained above)

I agree that Sherwood didn't cause irreparable mental damage and the players are to blame for this shit.

[bobzy]

Just now, DCJonah said:

I'm amazed its still mentioned as just one quote. That's dedication to ignore all the criticism while we were winning games. If you say it enough though people will believe you. 

It's probably still correct in any case.  Sherwood was **** terrible.

[Guest av1]

11 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

'They're men and they're professional footballers which means they can't be affected by things mentally' is an attitude that just shows why people don't talk about their mental state openly.

Especially the 'men' part. 

What exactly did Sherwood do to affect Guzans mental state? Decide he wanted to buy another keeper? 

If your saying that competition effects a persons mental health they probably chose the wrong profession when they decided to become a sportsman.  

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by av1

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, av1 said:

What exactly did Sherwood do to affect Guzans mental state? Decide he wanted to buy another keeper? 

If your saying that competition effects a persons mental health, either you don't understand mental health or the person picked the wrong profession when he decided to become a sportsman.  

 

Please read.

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Quote

You say that but what about the normal people who have mroe stressful jobs and get on with it. these guys are paid a significant amount of money yet they have little to now drive and cant be bothered. Just complete losers

I have no problem with that statement. I wasn't disputing that and I would agree with it.

I had an issue with 'they're men, they should just get on with it' attitude to mental state that makes it taboo for men to talk about mental illness. Way off topic, but yeah.

Because you're having a go at me for absolutely nothing. Ta.

Edited December 29, 2015 by StefanAVFC

[bobzy]

2 minutes ago, av1 said:

If your saying that competition effects a persons mental health, either you don't understand mental health or the person picked the wrong profession when he decided to become a sportsman.  

 

We don't need to de-rail this thread any further, but this bit is absolute garbage.  You should feel slightly ashamed

[Guest av1]

@StefanAVFC aapologies, quoted wrong post.

[DCJonah]

35 minutes ago, bobzy said:

In what way did Adama do more?  Genuinely curious, I didn't pay enough attention to either Sinclair or Adama as they both did nothing at all.  I'm all for Adama starting games, but bringing him on for Sinclair changed precisely nothing - yet apparently Sinclair was terrible whilst Adama is the new hope?

Second part - no.  I've defended the selection of Richardson as a left winger because, surprise surprise, he can play as a left winger.  We didn't play Gestede (obvious crossing target) so I don't get why Richardson started persay, but I don't think it's a baffling decision that we started a left winger in the position of left winger.

Against West Ham, he setup with 2 up top, Veretout behind them and a midfield 3.  Yes, there was no width - but who the hell provides width in our team?  Our only natural winger is Kieran Richardson and apparently it would be ridiculous to start him in that position.  So do we play with width or narrow?  Which is correct?  You're just picking faults for the sake of it.  And, to be honest, for the most part we were decent against West Ham.

Yes, it's obvious he's setting us up to win games.  I'm not aware of Garde at any point picking 5 defenders (please name where he's done this since he's soooooo much like Lambert/McLeish) and he's been the first manager to bother with 2 up front for God knows how long.  You're mis-directing "not winning games" as "not being attacking".  We're doing the latter but obviously not the former.

You seem to have a lot of faith in our attacking players to score goals.  The fact remains that, even with substantial numbers behind them, they're not doing this.  Where's the logic that dictates once you remove our supposed creativity we suddenly score loads more goals?  I've said before I'd like to see us play Grealish/Gil/Traore as an attacking trio behind Ayew, but I don't think this necessarily garners loads more goals.  We still need to massively improve on **** basic defensive work.

Adama took his defender on, beat him nearly everytime and got crosses into the box and won corners and a free kick. Isn't that what wide attacking players are meant to do? Sinclair didn't do that once. Do you not think it increases our chances of scoring by having someone who gets the ball into the box as opposed to someone who couldn't do that? 

When was the last time Richardson played successfully in a left wing position? There were other ways to set up and approach the game. 

And you're missing understanding two forwards (in one game) as an attacking approach to winning. You don't need to pick 5 defenders to show a don't lose approach to the game. The lack of attacking subs in winnable situations and the team yesterday display a far too cautious approach for the situation we are in. 

I actually have little faith in our attacking players, I don't think they're great. But I do think we've got a much better chance of winning games by utilising them more. I just don't see how Grealish, Adama and Gil can spend so much time on the bench for a team that has won one game all season. They surely have to be able to offer more of a threat that what we've seen so far. And if they don't then what have we lost? We're achieving embarrassing relegation without them. How can it be worse if they fail?

[useless]

Sometimes you have to ask yourself what do you know and how do you know it.

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Adama took his defender on, beat him nearly everytime and got crosses into the box and won corners and a free kick. Isn't that what wide attacking players are meant to do? Sinclair didn't do that once. Do you not think it increases our chances of scoring by having someone who gets the ball into the box as opposed to someone who couldn't do that? 

When was the last time Richardson played successfully in a left wing position? There were other ways to set up and approach the game. 

And you're missing understanding two forwards (in one game) as an attacking approach to winning. You don't need to pick 5 defenders to show a don't lose approach to the game. The lack of attacking subs in winnable situations and the team yesterday display a far too cautious approach for the situation we are in. 

I actually have little faith in our attacking players, I don't think they're great. But I do think we've got a much better chance of winning games by utilising them more. I just don't see how Grealish, Adama and Gil can spend so much time on the bench for a team that has won one game all season. They surely have to be able to offer more of a threat that what we've seen so far. And if they don't then what have we lost? We're achieving embarrassing relegation without them. How can it be worse if they fail?

Completely agree with your last bit, and I think we're at the same point really.  The only difference is that you see Garde as far too negative whilst I don't.

He's not gung-ho, but I quite like that (I suppose it's down to personal opinion though).

[DCJonah]

Just now, bobzy said:

Completely agree with your last bit, and I think we're at the same point really.  The only difference is that you see Garde as far too negative whilst I don't.

He's not gung-ho, but I quite like that (I suppose it's down to personal opinion though).

If we were in any other situation I'd be more than happy with it. I'd applaud it being sensible at times. But it seems to me we're just giving up without a proper fight and that frustrates the hell out of me. 

[bobzy]

Just now, DCJonah said:

If we were in any other situation I'd be more than happy with it. I'd applaud it being sensible at times. But it seems to me we're just giving up without a proper fight and that frustrates the hell out of me. 

I think I'm just in favour of getting something resembling a settled side.  Under Sherwood we had no idea what system (if any?) he played and under Garde, he hasn't yet established what system (if any?) he will play.

It all feels like we're in limbo.  If it takes the rest of this season and, ultimately, relegation to get this sorted then... well, so be it.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, bobzy said:

I think I'm just in favour of getting something resembling a settled side.  Under Sherwood we had no idea what system (if any?) he played and under Garde, he hasn't yet established what system (if any?) he will play.

It all feels like we're in limbo.  If it takes the rest of this season and, ultimately, relegation to get this sorted then... well, so be it.

Pretty spot on really.

[Danishlad]

Dear Remi, our full backs are awful!!

If we're building for next year - my team would be....

------------------Guzan--------------------

------Richards----Baker-----Okore-------

Bacuna---Sanchez----Veretout----Amavi

-----------------Grealish-------------------

----------Ayew--------Rudy---------------

Cant believe we haven't seen a side like this already.

 

 

[TRO]

14 hours ago, Butterfingers said:

You could blame one appointment, maybe two but all of them? I don't think so.

We continually sold the crown jewels and replaced them with kids, hungry players or whatever masterplan was in place at the time.

The bottom line is that you cannot strip all the assets and rebuild on a shoestring. If Lerner was so interested in our history as he makes out, he would look at the championship winning side and see what happened there-Exactly the same as is happening now.

We have the owner who hasn't been to a game since the cup final, a bloke in charge who has no interest in football and is not very good at his job and a head of recruitment who has done what exactly in the world of professional football to justify him making decisions on players.

What happened to the global branding of our club that Krulak used to harp on about? What happened to the bright future they all promised us?

Its a shambles-Lerner came here for profit and wants to cut his losses-There was never ever any commitment or sentimental attachment to the club or its fans-It was a business venture-A poorly thought out one at that.

Yes, maybe more than that if you include CEO's

Look, if you gross what he has spent including buying the club its c £250 mill.....thats roughly 25% of his personal wealth.

I am not attempting to defend this guy, but lets get the accusations in line please.

We have been on a road for many years where we have Sold better players than we have bought( but intended to buy better) 

I guess one of the best examples ( worst transactions) was selling Cahill for 5mill and buying Davies Mill.....and there are many more examples of that but not quite as pronounced. Bent c 20 mill fully amortised.Reo Coker 8.5 mill fully amortised......not to mention the affect on the team performances they made.

Who can keep that up.....and further more who would keep that up.

There are many things wrong that RL is not DIRECTLY responsible for.......Indirectly YES....because he is the owner and Chief.

What about the rubbish owner we had when we won the league....He didn't stop us from succeeding...despite his absence of living in the isle of Man.....But we had the right people running the football side of things, thats why we negated his poor attempt of leadership.

Randy Lerner has ****** up big time, I will agree on that......But don't get trying blame him for the Middle East War as well.....because in some quarters thats what it is coming across like.

Ps Remi Garde has declared in todays Birmingham Mail that we desperately need some Battlers in Jan......Myself and many fans on this forum having been saying this for some time way before Remi took over......Is that the owners fault too?.......Its about recruiting the RIGHT players for the circumstances this club is in.