The Captaincy 2022/23

[osmark86]

8 hours ago, maqroll said:

I can't recall the captaincy ever being intensely discussed like this. 

I think it's a function of not only the increased interest in Villa, but also the high stakes in play now that we are back in the mix, relevant again and being properly backed by ownership. 

Expectations are sky high. It's dizzying up here!

No kidding. The wobbling of heads intensifies.

[Adman]

Haven't read much of the thread, but if you take the emotion out of the decision, Mcginn seems to play better for Scotland as vice captain, and Ming's plays better without the captaincy for England so maybe we're just trying to get the best out of both of them.

[Zatman]

28 minutes ago, Adman said:

Haven't read much of the thread, but if you take the emotion out of the decision, Mcginn seems to play better for Scotland as vice captain, and Ming's plays better without the captaincy for England so maybe we're just trying to get the best out of both of them.

McGinn was always vice captain here though and his performances weren't better

[Mantis]

12 hours ago, lexicon said:

My worry about Gerrard is that he's the old school, 'pfm' style of manager - leaving all the technical stuff to the coaching staff while he speaks in platitudes etc. This move does not fill me with confidence.

I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest this is the case.

[TRO]

On 23/07/2022 at 08:43, VillaAlex said:

Mings or Martinez for me.

too far back to influence games.imo

[TRO]

I would think, much of our existence is played out at BMH......we only see what happens on match day.

Sure the match is the most important, but the work at BMH is the conduit to it.

Maybe the manager see's McGinn as the natural leader, the one they all gravitate to, so he has just verified, what was already there anyway.

Maybe he wants to see more influence further forward and that Mings will still show his influence at the back anyway.

We will have to wait and see, if it works.....we have to try these things.....because losing 19 games last season, wasn't working.

[hippo]

11 minutes ago, Mantis said:

I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest this is the case.

I thought Gerrard had alluded to this on at least a couple of occasions.

Him saying Beale was the brains behind the coaching etc.

Not a dig at Stevie G - I just thought he was ok pretty open about leaving the coaching (to an extent) to his head coach.

[hippo]

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

I would think, much of our existence is played out at BMH......we only see what happens on match day.

Sure the match is the most important, but the work at BMH is the conduit to it.

Maybe the manager see's McGinn as the natural leader, the one they all gravitate to, so he has just verified, what was already there anyway.

Maybe he wants to see more influence further forward and that Mings will still show his influence at the back anyway.

We will have to wait and see, if it works.....we have to try these things.....because losing 19 games last season, wasn't working.

If the problem was Ming's being captain when it should have been Mcginn I wonder why it's taken him since November to realise that.

To be honest switching the captaincy to Mcginn (or any other player) is only ever going to have a very nominal impact (if any at all) on results. We would probably still have lost those 19 games last season.

It's another dubious decision from Stevie G though - that's the bigger issue here.

 

 

[Mazrim]

9 hours ago, maqroll said:

I can't recall the captaincy ever being intensely discussed like this. 

I don't think its so much the captaincy that the focus is on but what it means to our development and improvement in regards to who has it.
Yes, it doesn't necessarily mean McGinn will play every game. Then again, he has been playing every game under Gerrard thus far, has not made way for other players in the squad and we've only really bought one midfielder who doesn't play in McGinn's position. So I can see why people are drawing the conclusion.

I'm hoping Gerrard saying he wants another CM is still the case and that Ramsey isn't going to sit it out just to give Captain McGinn game time - regardless of whether he deserves it. Sanson deserves time there, Luiz does too. If we're going to employ a diamond then you could argue another 6 should be looked at too. Whether that's Tim or Luiz or a new guy. Its definitely not McGinn.

[TRO]

8 minutes ago, hippo said:

If the problem was Ming's being captain when it should have been Mcginn I wonder why it's taken him since November to realise that.

To be honest switching the captaincy to Mcginn (or any other player) is only ever going to have a very nominal impact (if any at all) on results. We would probably still have lost those 19 games last season.

It's another dubious decision from Stevie G though - that's the bigger issue here.

 

 

Well Pete, sadly, your reaction is predictable, mate.

Since November a million and one things needed to be looked at, so thats a bit disingenuous, to start with.....but I agree, the affect could be nominal, but it could be significant too, we have to wait and see....predictions are what they are, reality is what matters.

Even Elon Musk has failed Umpten times in his innovative life, trying things in an effort to improve.....so failure is an an inevitability of folk who try things, in an effort to improve.....There isn't a manger out there that is right every time BEFORE he tries things.....trial and error, is a huge part of football.

Its only a dubious decision, to those that are keen to be proven right, in their disdain for him.....and will be satisfied when he fails, despite wanting the team to do well......That is going to be a very tricky situation to seperate/compromise, Pete.

[hippo]

7 minutes ago, TRO said:

Well Pete, sadly, your reaction is predictable, mate.

Since November a million and one things needed to be looked at, so thats a bit disingenuous, to start with.....but I agree, the affect could be nominal, but it could be significant too, we have to wait and see....predictions are what they are, reality is what matters.

Even Elon Musk has failed Umpten times in his innovative life, trying things in an effort to improve.....so failure is an an inevitability of folk who try things, in an effort to improve.....There isn't a manger out there that is right every time BEFORE he tries things.....trial and error, is a huge part of football.

Its only a dubious decision, to those that are keen to be proven right, in their disdain for him.....and will be satisfied when he fails, despite wanting the team to do well......That is going to be a very tricky situation to seperate/compromise, Pete.

As I have said elsewhere I think the decision has been handled poorly - this should have been a discreet discussion behind closed doors.

As for Stevie G imo he has a talented squad of players.his success or failure will be dependent on if he can mould them into a team.

[lexicon]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest this is the case.

1) We literally just took another football club's manager to handle the tactical side of things in Neil Critchley after that job was held by Michael Beale

2) I've never heard him say something particularly insightful or illuminating in an interview, it all boils down to things like 'I have high standards' without really elaborating. 

 

[WakefieldVillan]

I opted for Martinez with my vote purely because I felt that he was the only player (out of the real candidates) that realistically would start every premier league game.

That said, I don't like goalkeepers being captain so I think him being vice captain is totally fine.

I was shocked that Mings didn't retain it, though it would have made a bit of a mockery of the announcement so maybe not that much of a surprise.

Having had time to reflect on the decision I am pretty happy with the choice of McGinn, I understand there are concerns over him playing every game but with Emi as back up I think there is a nice back up option of not always starting SJM.

I am hoping it brings out the best in him and despite his flaws, he has a lot of good traits and usually when he is on it, Villa are on it - and I am quite excited that we are trying something new.

 

 

[Tom13]

1 hour ago, hippo said:

Not a dig at Stevie G

[thunderball]

4 hours ago, Mazrim said:

I currently stand in the "I hope you know what you're doing" camp. I think McGinn holds us back and wanted to see him replaced in the starting XI, which now looks decidedly less likely.
I can't help feeling this is going to mean McGinn will be pretty much starting every game in a key position he isn't good enough to play in for a team supposedly chasing top 8 (and yes, perhaps a signal we're not getting a new player).

This isn't personal, I just don't think he's committed or mobile enough to cover Kamara in defensive duties, or skillful or productive enough to support the front 3/4. I cannot recall any consistent form since we've been back in the PL to warrant this honour. I know some guys will and do regularly trot out facts and figures which suggests he's unjustly criticised, but I find those stats dubious and at odds with what I see every week with my own eyes:

- Doesn't score or create enough. Not even remotely close.
- Is easily played through when on defensive duties
- Trots around far too often. Noticeably, when we're on the defensive.
- Attempts pathetic long range shots too often that miss by miles.
- Misplaces passes too often. Often leading to counter attacks he makes little effort in helping thwart.
- He is chronically slow. Maybe the slowest Villa midfielder I've ever seen.
- Slows our attacks down too often.
- Disappears in games. Sometimes several games at a time. Yet appears in the next starting XI - which I would imagine hurts morale of anybody trying to break into the team

Now, I'll try to add some plus points as they occur to me, for balance:
- Capable of spectacular passes when they do come off.
- Can be tenacious when he fancies it.
- Draws fouls.
- Seems to be a popular character.

Ok so the plus column is sparse and I'm sure some of you would add more. I am however, concerned. I don't think he's pushed on since the first month or two of our first season back. He's been part of a midfield that has been easy to cut through for several seasons and Kamara alone will not remedy that. Not only do I think we should buy a better player to replace McGinn, I also think we have better alternatives in the squad already. So yes, this apparent endorsement of McGinn concerns me. I can see a scenario where he plays regardless, and feels ever more undroppable. I also think there's a narrative here of McGinn as a ball of energy of hustling the opposition, and while that happens in isolated periods, its a bit of a myth to say its a characteristic.

Is he a leader? Maybe, but not really by example. I don't think this is going to be a decision we look back on with any great fondness, but let's see. I wish him all the best of course and hope he proves me wrong with extreme prejudice.

 

I agree, I am in the camp thinking we improve if we improve on McGinn (and Mings), despite them being the sole survivors of the promotion team. We need to strive to improve. 

Let’s hope it helps improve McGinn’s game, but I also think despite McGinn deserving to be dropped and generally hasn’t been, I think Gerrard will drop him if necessary as Gerrard is now fully in the firing line too, but I also think they fully intend to buy a CM if the right [high] calibre candidate can be brought on board. This wont be easy as we want and need Champions League level players and this has so far prevented that position being filled by our A-List candidates, we already have a squad full of decent B-List candidates.

Edited July 28, 2022 by thunderball

[PaulC]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

too far back to influence games.imo

I agree it makes sense to have a midfield player as captain.  I dont believe Mings is guaranteed his place either and neither should McGinn. 

[briny_ear]

2 hours ago, hippo said:

As I have said elsewhere I think the decision has been handled poorly - this should have been a discreet discussion behind closed doors.

As for Stevie G imo he has a talented squad of players.his success or failure will be dependent on if he can mould them into a team.

Slightly bizarre idea. So we would just have had to guess the captaincy had changed hands when we saw the armband on McGinn, not Mings?

I’m pretty confident this would have been discussed “behind closed doors” before the announcement.

[briny_ear]

12 hours ago, maqroll said:

I can't recall the captaincy ever being intensely discussed like this. 

I think it's a function of not only the increased interest in Villa, but also the high stakes in play now that we are back in the mix, relevant again and being properly backed by ownership. 

Expectations are sky high. It's dizzying up here!

It’s just another outlet for a few posters to continue their theme that Gerrard is clueless as a manager. 

Gerrard chooses McGinn as captain, so it must be a mistake, is their reasoning.

Gerrard chose muesli for his breakfast, the clueless idiot. No Villa manager has chosen muesli since Tim Sherwood.

[hippo]

16 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

Slightly bizarre idea. So we would just have had to guess the captaincy had changed hands when we saw the armband on McGinn, not Mings?

I’m pretty confident this would have been discussed “behind closed doors” before the announcement.

No. My recollection was that towards the back end of last season Stevie G announced that the captaincy position would be reviewed over the summer.

 

[briny_ear]

This poll is open until 30 July. May I wonder why?

I’ve just voted for McGinn, clever me.