Neil Critchley

[AntrimBlack]

1 hour ago, Rolta said:

I mean, in fairness, just because you posted it doesn't mean it's true. I think it's pretty easy to point fingers from the outside, but I doubt it's a black and white situation. Then there's that improvement between Smith/Gerrard, but in counter to that there's the different players etc. etc.

Absolutely. Not saying it is true. Just saying it was what I thought. I was responding to a post that said Beale had walked away with his reputation untouched, and I was pointing out that that was not the case as far as I was concerned.

[Rolta]

1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

Absolutely. Not saying it is true. Just saying it was what I thought. I was responding to a post that said Beale had walked away with his reputation untouched, and I was pointing out that that was not the case as far as I was concerned.

Ah I see! 

[TRO]

8 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

Don't know where to start with this.

Do crap managers like Steve Bruce not want good players as well?

Not touching the classist nonsense.

read it again, you might get it.

[Tomaszk]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

read it again, you might get it.

Just double checked.

Absolute codswallop.

[Anything11]

1 hour ago, Tomaszk said:

Just double checked.

Absolute codswallop.

Gerrard demands a higher quality player than Smith/Bruce. It is influenced by where the club was/is at with each manager but I believe there is a point to be made there.

[TRO]

14 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

Just double checked.

Absolute codswallop.

Thanks........but your responses to ALL my posts despite the topic are predictable and consistent, at least.....my sense of humour and analogies are clearly not in sync with yours.

my advice is........don't read them and then you don't have to busy yourself, working them out and making pointed responses.

Edited June 14, 2022 by TRO

[TRO]

On 13/06/2022 at 13:36, Tomaszk said:

Don't know where to start with this.

Do crap managers like Steve Bruce not want good players as well?

Not touching the classist nonsense.

Crap managers have difficulty attracting good players.....thats the point you seemed to have missed, inadvertently, I hope.

but I'm not saying Steve Bruce is a crap manager, you are.......However Steve Bruce would be limited now, in attracting really good players

equally Dean Smith was never going to have the pull of SG.

phew!!!!.....this is hard work.

Edited June 14, 2022 by TRO

[nick76]

Quote

Meanwhile, Villa paid Blackpool an astonishing £1.2million compensation package for coach Neil Critchley.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/18932191/aston-villa-steven-gerrard-cameron-archer-striker/

[Dale]

On 14/06/2022 at 15:51, TRO said:

Crap managers have difficulty attracting good players.....thats the point you seemed to have missed, inadvertently, I hope.

but I'm not saying Steve Bruce is a crap manager, you are.......However Steve Bruce would be limited now, in attracting really good players

equally Dean Smith was never going to have the pull of SG.

phew!!!!.....this is hard work.

And we're all agreed this is because Gerrard was a decent player, if he doesn't back it up as a coach his ability to attract players will go the way of Steve Bruce. 

[DaveAV1]

I think there’s a general misunderstanding of roles here. The manager has a wide ranging remit. You can encompass this very simply by saying it’s his job to win or get sacked.
 

To achieve this though is obviously more complicated. My understanding is that he decides the strategy of how we want to play. Defensive, attacking, narrow etc. To achieve this he initially looks at the players he’s got and then works with his coaches to try to make the strategy work. He then looks at how the playing  staff can be improved/changed and works with the recruitment team. Part of his role then is to try to attract his choices along with the board’s ability to present a financial package. 
 

Oncehe’s got the players he wants, or at least the closest to it, his job is more about the overall picture, motivation, keeping players happy etc. Throw in press duties and all the malarkey that comes with it and it’s a more than full time job. His top training ground assistant, now Neil Critchley, has a huge job on its own. No manager could properly do that with all the other responsibilities he has. 
 

Ultimately we judge what we see on match day and the and the obvious target for praise or criticism is the manager and that can change from match to match. The obvious criticism is usually the way we’ve played and therefore the coaching. In reality coaching is just one of the responsibilities the modern manager has. I’m not letting them off the hook because one of the major things they sign up for and get paid for is to be the one that faces the camera etc. 
 

It’s a human thing and sometimes can’t be explained. Who knows if the best player’s fell out with his girlfriend or a senior coach is hitting the bottle a bit etc. But the manager’s main job is to suck it up or to bask in the glory and at the end of the day keep his fingers crossed that all the ducks are lined up and in the right order. 

Edited June 19, 2022 by DaveAV1

[TRO]

2 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

I think there’s a general misunderstanding of roles here. The manager has a wide ranging remit. You can encompass this very simply by saying it’s his job to win or get sacked.
 

To achieve this though is obviously more complicated. My understanding is that he decides the strategy of how we want to play. Defensive, attacking, narrow etc. To achieve this he initially looks at the players he’s got and then works with his coaches to try to make the strategy work. He then looks at how the playing  staff can be improved/changed and works with the recruitment team. Part of his role then is to try to attract his choices along with the board’s ability to present a financial package. 
 

Oncehe’s got the players he wants, or at least the closest to it, his job is more about the overall picture, motivation, keeping players happy etc. Throw in press duties and all the malarkey that comes with it and it’s a more than full time job. His top training ground assistant, now Neil Critchley, has a huge job on its own. No manager could properly do that with all the other responsibilities he has. 
 

Ultimately we judge what we see on match day and the and the obvious target for praise or criticism is the manager and that can change from match to match. The obvious criticism is usually the way we’ve played and therefore the coaching. In reality coaching is just one of the responsibilities the modern manager has. I’m not letting them off the hook because one of the major things they sign up for and get paid for is to be the one that faces the camera etc. 
 

It’s a human thing and sometimes can’t be explained. Who knows if the best player’s fell out with his girlfriend or a senior coach is hitting the bottle a bit etc. But the manager’s main job is to suck it up or to bask in the glory and at the end of the day keep his fingers crossed that all the ducks are lined up and in the right order. 

Succinct......well versed.

[nick76]

2 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

You can encompass this very simply by saying it’s his job to win or get sacked.

You’ve provided a very good assessment, the problem though it that the only thing that does matter is results though for a manager.  It’s what he’s judged on more than anything else.  

It’s the reality of football and life that if a manager doesn’t get results he’s sacked…it doesn’t matter all the other good stuff or bad stuff for that matter, it’s about results.  

The buck stops with the manager, it’s got more and more centric around this as the money in the game has got bigger and bigger.

I don’t think people misunderstand, I think people don’t care about the other stuff, it’s all about on the pitch and the results from it.  The outcome of that lands at the managers door.

[TRO]

5 hours ago, nick76 said:

You’ve provided a very good assessment, the problem though it that the only thing that does matter is results though for a manager.  It’s what he’s judged on more than anything else.  

It’s the reality of football and life that if a manager doesn’t get results he’s sacked…it doesn’t matter all the other good stuff or bad stuff for that matter, it’s about results.  

The buck stops with the manager, it’s got more and more centric around this as the money in the game has got bigger and bigger.

I don’t think people misunderstand, I think people don’t care about the other stuff, it’s all about on the pitch and the results from it.  The outcome of that lands at the managers door.

in a nutshell.

[hippo]

To be fair he's done a great job at Blackpool and would have (IMO) been in line for a bigger championship club had he stayed at Blackpool.

Again imo he is coming to villa with quite a hefty remit - he won't be anybody's yes man - and will want to put his own ideas into action.

For all the talk of Beale - I think this bloke could be an upgrade.

I like the move - because it's sort of old  school - he's cut the mustard in the lower divisions - and is now getting a crack at coaching the elite.

And of course he has a comb over hairstyle - all good villa teams had one. 

Edited June 19, 2022 by hippo

[Jas10]

10 hours ago, nick76 said:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/18932191/aston-villa-steven-gerrard-cameron-archer-striker/

It’s the Sun so it most likely bullshit but…

how much did QPR pay to take Beale from us?

[hippo]

On 19/06/2022 at 08:56, DaveAV1 said:

I think there’s a general misunderstanding of roles here. The manager has a wide ranging remit. You can encompass this very simply by saying it’s his job to win or get sacked.
 

To achieve this though is obviously more complicated. My understanding is that he decides the strategy of how we want to play. Defensive, attacking, narrow etc. To achieve this he initially looks at the players he’s got and then works with his coaches to try to make the strategy work. He then looks at how the playing  staff can be improved/changed and works with the recruitment team. Part of his role then is to try to attract his choices along with the board’s ability to present a financial package. 
 

Oncehe’s got the players he wants, or at least the closest to it, his job is more about the overall picture, motivation, keeping players happy etc. Throw in press duties and all the malarkey that comes with it and it’s a more than full time job. His top training ground assistant, now Neil Critchley, has a huge job on its own. No manager could properly do that with all the other responsibilities he has. 
 

Ultimately we judge what we see on match day and the and the obvious target for praise or criticism is the manager and that can change from match to match. The obvious criticism is usually the way we’ve played and therefore the coaching. In reality coaching is just one of the responsibilities the modern manager has. I’m not letting them off the hook because one of the major things they sign up for and get paid for is to be the one that faces the camera etc. 
 

It’s a human thing and sometimes can’t be explained. Who knows if the best player’s fell out with his girlfriend or a senior coach is hitting the bottle a bit etc. But the manager’s main job is to suck it up or to bask in the glory and at the end of the day keep his fingers crossed that all the ducks are lined up and in the right order. 

So long as it works the allocation of duties imo doesn't matter much.

If Gerrard choses the players and Critchley does everything else for example - so long as we have a winning team on the pitch that's ok.

The nature of the managers job though is that his head is the one on the block. He can't say "ah well Neil coaches the players" if results go awry.

[KMitch]

44 minutes ago, hippo said:

So long as it works the allocation of duties imo doesn't matter much.

If Gerrard choses the players and Critchley does everything else for example - so long as we have a winning team on the pitch that's ok.

The nature of the managers job though is that his head is the one on the block. He can't say "ah well Neil coaches the players" if results go awry.

He can be proactive in changing the coaching staff if he isn't getting the results he wants...  All our more tenured managers in recent history have changed coaching staff for better or worse.  Lambert went through a revolving door of assistants after Culverhouse was sacked, Bruce's team shifted a bit over the 3 seasons he was here, Deano's team changed every year as well.  

It's like any other business...  If there are problems and Gerrard isn't doing a good enough job proactively trying to fix them or explaining what he is doing to resolve them to his superiors in the timeframe they expect, he'll get the sack...  Just like everyone before him.  

[TRO]

23 hours ago, hippo said:

To be fair he's done a great job at Blackpool and would have (IMO) been in line for a bigger championship club had he stayed at Blackpool.

Again imo he is coming to villa with quite a hefty remit - he won't be anybody's yes man - and will want to put his own ideas into action.

For all the talk of Beale - I think this bloke could be an upgrade.

I like the move - because it's sort of old  school - he's cut the mustard in the lower divisions - and is now getting a crack at coaching the elite.

And of course he has a comb over hairstyle - all good villa teams had one. 

I like the idea of him being reputedly good at organising defences....but as you allude to Pete, he seems to have a steely approach to things, and won't be distracted, from winning.

I agree with your summing up.

[TRO]

2 hours ago, hippo said:

So long as it works the allocation of duties imo doesn't matter much.

If Gerrard choses the players and Critchley does everything else for example - so long as we have a winning team on the pitch that's ok.

The nature of the managers job though is that his head is the one on the block. He can't say "ah well Neil coaches the players" if results go awry.

Its always been the case Pete.....whether a manager is directly or indirectly involved in coaching, its doesn't matter......He takes the responsibility for results, and that is the only way it can work.

[The_Steve]

23 hours ago, Jas10 said:

It’s the Sun so it most likely bullshit but…

how much did QPR pay to take Beale from us?

It's also Alan Nixon - who also runs a Patreon for his transfer rumour guff despite being printed in such tabloids.