MON stay or go

[Pricey_1984]

couldnt be arsed to read 20 pages of this but are the people who voted for him to go just preparing for when we next lose a match?

[PompeyVillan]

It is a shame, given the good state of the club all through. Some, though not much, of the negative comment is well thought out, well expressed and adds to the discussions. A lot of it is well short of that, though. What's the saying about tomorrow's chip wrapping? It pretty much applies to all that all of us write, and it's certainly not worth arguing with people who can't put a coherent argument as to why they think what they say they think. "MO'N's a clueless idiot", "We only play 4-4-2 and only ever bring Heskey on". "why can't he see what I can see and do what I'd do?" - It's just not worth getting bothered about this type of "opinion". At the end of the day results are the thing that matter, not whether a small minority think MO'N is a clown.

If I could fit that in my sig, I would. I couldn't agree more Blandy.

[barry'sboots]

There surely has to be times, when you can have decent debate about our short comings without having to defend yourself as some radical subversive hell bent on bringing down a great institution.

Surely the time to discuss the manager going and all our problems is when things are going badly and we aren't meeting expectations. At the moment we are a bit inconsistent like most teams in the prem and certainly like all the teams we will be challenging a top 4 spot with.

You seem to want to talk about our short comings after every single game regardless of the performance or the result.

I completely disagree with this Big John. I think what you are describing there is known as complacency. To only discuss faults when things are going well, and you are maybe getting that bit of luck, means that you will not be prepared for when you do hit a bit of a blip or the faults start to become more prevalent causing a downward trend in performances.

Forgive me because, as you have pointed out on several occasions, I am no premier league manager but I have to agree with TRO and say a healthy debate on our failings is really interesting from my perspective. I hope that MON, Robertson et all are also having the same debates internally and striving for solutions. Only a fool buries their head in the sand and does not consider weaknesses (or opportunities for improvement if you want to put a more positive spin on this).

As I said earlier, I do think we have some problems at the minute and I want to air and discuss these and debate solutions with others that follow my club. However, there are also some very good things happening at Villa that do not get discussed as intently as I think most Villa fans are in agreement on these points and there is not too much to debate, so just to balance it up:

- Gabby's great form and general improvement

- rock solid defence with options/cover

- good young keeper

- great kids coming through plus the recent addition of Delph

- all the good work Randy is doing to the ground/infrastructure

- the league position certainly

My perceived negativity (I think you, and some others, would perceive me that way) is borne out of frustration because I actually think MON has now built a squad that is not far off and can challenge the Big 4 and Citeh. I think if he had made a few tweaks then we could have been right up there. I think that, with that in mind, I am probably one of the most positive posters on here? But as I said above, I think it would be silly not to also recognise the weaknesses and strive for solutions that would correct them and make us an even better club.

[commander]

There surely has to be times, when you can have decent debate about our short comings without having to defend yourself as some radical subversive hell bent on bringing down a great institution.

Surely the time to discuss the manager going and all our problems is when things are going badly and we aren't meeting expectations. At the moment we are a bit inconsistent like most teams in the prem and certainly like all the teams we will be challenging a top 4 spot with.

You seem to want to talk about our short comings after every single game regardless of the performance or the result.

I completely disagree with this Big John. I think what you are describing there is known as complacency. To only discuss faults when things are going well, and you are maybe getting that bit of luck, means that you will not be prepared for when you do hit a bit of a blip or the faults start to become more prevalent causing a downward trend in performances.

Forgive me because, as you have pointed out on several occasions, I am no premier league manager but I have to agree with TRO and say a healthy debate on our failings is really interesting from my perspective. I hope that MON, Robertson et all are also having the same debates internally and striving for solutions. Only a fool buries their head in the sand and does not consider weaknesses (or opportunities for improvement if you want to put a more positive spin on this).

As I said earlier, I do think we have some problems at the minute and I want to air and discuss these and debate solutions with others that follow my club. However, there are also some very good things happening at Villa that do not get discussed as intently as I think most Villa fans are in agreement on these points and there is not too much to debate, so just to balance it up:

- Gabby's great form and general improvement

- rock solid defence with options/cover

- good young keeper

- great kids coming through plus the recent addition of Delph

- all the good work Randy is doing to the ground/infrastructure

- the league position certainly

My perceived negativity (I think you, and some others, would perceive me that way) is borne out of frustration because I actually think MON has now built a squad that is not far off and can challenge the Big 4 and Citeh. I think if he had made a few tweaks then we could have been right up there. I think that, with that in mind, I am probably one of the most positive posters on here? But as I said above, I think it would be silly not to also recognise the weaknesses and strive for solutions that would correct them and make us an even better club.

I too, agree, the reason I'm so annoyed is we're not that far away. I said before which I probably didn't ecplain properly was 'There's no point beating Chelski & Liverpool, if we can't beat rubbish like Wigan, Blackburn & Wolves'

My point is we're undoing the good work of beating those teams by losing against rubbish, we have better players athan the weaker teams, so if we can beat great teams (chelsea, Liverpool) then we can beat poorer teams. The rreason we don't in my opinionis that we're one dimensional and can't break poor teams down. I believe we have the players to beat these teams, but a manager who will not try a plan B. Against teams that defend deap we need creativity in the middle, we also get bullied in the midfield, to solve this, how diificult would it be to play 451, stick Nigel in for his solidarity and workrate, push the two wingers up and if we don't break down the oopposition, bring n albrighton and stick one of Milner, Young in the middle (for sidwell) we have options, we have the players, unfortunately we have a manager who is too pig headed to try something different.

I firmly believe most people of a reasonable depth of football knowledge could get Villa to do their best to try to beat these poor teams, we don't adapt to opposition - we should do.

[blandy]

...My point is we're undoing the good work of beating those teams by losing against rubbish, we have better players than the weaker teams, so if we can beat great teams (chelsea, Liverpool) then we can beat poorer teams....unfortunately we have a manager who is too pig headed to try something different.

I firmly believe most people of a reasonable depth of football knowledge could get Villa to do their best to try to beat these poor teams, we don't adapt to opposition - we should do.

. It's amazing how someone who you describe as pig-headed and who you imply lacks a depth of football knowledge managed to get us to beat Chelsea and Liverpool. Presumably it was a fluke?

It's also worth pointing out that Burnley have beaten Everton and Man Utd. Wigan have beaten Chelsea, Stoke have won at Spurs, various sides have beaten Liverpool - To dismiss these as "rubbish" and "poor" sides seems....I dunno....

[alienvillan]

As much as I would like to see MON doing it the Ron Saunders' way I still don't think we have a squad that can challenge the big4 - or should I say the top4. And we certainly don't have - at the moment - the performance to do that.

'There's no point beating Chelski & Liverpool, if we can't beat rubbish like Wigan, Blackburn & Wolves'

What if losing to Wigan and Blackburn tells the real story? What if winning against Chelsea and Liverpool were just accidents?

I'm probably the most negative poster on here. I am the real villain!

But every game and result tells us where we are and who we are.

[Mr_Dogg]

As much as I would like to see MON doing it the Ron Saunders' way I still don't think we have a squad that can challenge the big4 - or should I say the top4. And we certainly don't have - at the moment - the performance to do that.

'There's no point beating Chelski & Liverpool, if we can't beat rubbish like Wigan, Blackburn & Wolves'

What if losing to Wigan and Blackburn tells the real story? What if winning against Chelsea and Liverpool were just accidents?

I'm probably the most negative poster on here. I am the real villain!

But every game and result tells us where we are and who we are.

Or vice versa? At least you know you're negative though.

[Big_John_10]

I completely disagree with this Big John. I think what you are describing there is known as complacency. To only discuss faults when things are going well, and you are maybe getting that bit of luck, means that you will not be prepared for when you do hit a bit of a blip or the faults start to become more prevalent causing a downward trend in performances.

You are aware that you aren't in charge of aston villa don't you? Complaining about every little tactical decision on the internet is not going to prepare the team, no one from aston villa football club is looking for tactical advice from VT.

Forgive me because, as you have pointed out on several occasions, I am no premier league manager but I have to agree with TRO and say a healthy debate on our failings is really interesting from my perspective. I hope that MON, Robertson et all are also having the same debates internally and striving for solutions. Only a fool buries their head in the sand and does not consider weaknesses (or opportunities for improvement if you want to put a more positive spin on this).

Yes i hope the people in charge are discussing issues and i believe that's something they will do all the time. How can you have a healthy debate with people who truly believe they could do better? You've done nothing but point out tactical faults that MON has done in every single game, even games we've won and you've stated that without those mistakes villa could be top of the league. How can you debate with someone who thinks they could lead villa to top of the league?

I firmly believe most people of a reasonable depth of football knowledge could get Villa to do their best to try to beat these poor teams

This is what i'm talking about, how can you debate with this?

[alienvillan]

As much as I would like to see MON doing it the Ron Saunders' way I still don't think we have a squad that can challenge the big4 - or should I say the top4. And we certainly don't have - at the moment - the performance to do that.

'There's no point beating Chelski & Liverpool, if we can't beat rubbish like Wigan, Blackburn & Wolves'

What if losing to Wigan and Blackburn tells the real story? What if winning against Chelsea and Liverpool were just accidents?

I'm probably the most negative poster on here. I am the real villain!

But every game and result tells us where we are and who we are.

Or vice versa? At least you know you're negative though.

Yeah. To be negative is tough enough, and knowing it makes it even tougher:(

But how many times have you seen Lampard make the kind of mistake he made when Dunne scored? How many times have you seen a CB so unmarked as Collins was when he scored?

How many goals have Lucas scored with a header? And how many own goals? How many times has NRC been fouled inside the penalty area?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

As much as I would like to see MON doing it the Ron Saunders' way I still don't think we have a squad that can challenge the big4 - or should I say the top4. And we certainly don't have - at the moment - the performance to do that.

'There's no point beating Chelski & Liverpool, if we can't beat rubbish like Wigan, Blackburn & Wolves'

What if losing to Wigan and Blackburn tells the real story? What if winning against Chelsea and Liverpool were just accidents?

I'm probably the most negative poster on here. I am the real villain!

But every game and result tells us where we are and who we are.

Or vice versa? At least you know you're negative though.

Yeah. To be negative is tough enough, and knowing it makes it even tougher:(

But how many times have you seen Lampard make the kind of mistake he made when Dunne scored? How many times have you seen a CB so unmarked as Collins was when he scored?

How many goals have Lucas scored with a header? And how many own goals? How many times has NRC been fouled inside the penalty area?

Yeah how many times has Kightly been fouled in the area?

How many times has David Dunn won a handball with a bicycle kick?

How many times will Dunne make a little error that led to the Samba goal?

How many times will Friedel make an error like he did against Chelsea?

[alienvillan]

So it's 50/50?

Foul after foul, mistakes and someone doing the unexpected. Don't blame the referees anymore (I'm not suggesting you did), everybody makes mistakes and shit happens.

[barry'sboots]

...My point is we're undoing the good work of beating those teams by losing against rubbish, we have better players than the weaker teams, so if we can beat great teams (chelsea, Liverpool) then we can beat poorer teams....unfortunately we have a manager who is too pig headed to try something different.

I firmly believe most people of a reasonable depth of football knowledge could get Villa to do their best to try to beat these poor teams, we don't adapt to opposition - we should do.

. It's amazing how someone who you describe as pig-headed and who you imply lacks a depth of football knowledge managed to get us to beat Chelsea and Liverpool. Presumably it was a fluke?

It's also worth pointing out that Burnley have beaten Everton and Man Utd. Wigan have beaten Chelsea, Stoke have won at Spurs, various sides have beaten Liverpool - To dismiss these as "rubbish" and "poor" sides seems....I dunno....

Blandy, put the semantics to one side and look at the core of what Commander is saying.

Do you think that MON put out the right sides to beat Wigan, Blackburn and Wolves? If you do, do you think he should have made changes to those sides during the game when it was clear that we weren't playing well? Do you think MON should have responded to Mark Hughes bringing on Stephen Ireland? Do you think MON should have responded in the Rapid Vienna game when we were 2-0 up but clearly getting pressed back and they were making chances?

These are the games in which, IMO, MON's lack of flexibility/plan B was exposed.

The Plop game was spot on - he has now built a strong squad that he used to play the 4-5-1 away from home that many had been craving for a long time and got the deserved result. The Chelski game was a great first 60 minutes and then we looked under the cosh. I would have liked to see an extra man in the CM to shore things up - Martin obviously didn't and got away with it IMO - we could have drawn/lost that if Deco and/or Anelka had their shooting boots on in the last half hour.

Of course teams will have off days when things don't go right BUT that, for me, is when a manager really earns his corn by recognising where things aren't maybe working and trying to do something about it - changing formation, making a sub etc.. These, of course, won't always work but better, IMO, to try something and get a result some of the time than not to try and get the same poor performance for the rest of the game 100% of the time? The better managers will get it to work more often than the poorer ones! To MON's credit he even demonstrated that he is capable of doing this in the Blues game and it worked. I just wish he'd try this more often?

And frankly, I don't care if the others didn't perform to the best of their ability or their managers got it wrong against lesser sides, I want the Villa to be up there capitalising on these errors.

I think you are also confusing some matters with your comparison as it is not as simple as just saying they lost to poorer sides e.g. Spurs lost to Stoke but should have beaten them about 7-0 judging by the commentary as they dominated the game but just couldn't score. We haven't done that in our two losses or the Wolves game as far as I am aware?

[Mr_Dogg]

So it's 50/50?

Foul after foul, mistakes and someone doing the unexpected. Don't blame the referees anymore (I'm not suggesting you did), everybody makes mistakes and shit happens.

:? Is your perfect game a 0-0? Because mistakes and defensive errors are what lead to goals. BBC and SKY analyse the shit out of games and all they talk about are mistakes, he should have got tighter, he left his man free, he tracked the ball not his man etc etc...

Forcing a team to make mistakes is what leads to goals.

[alienvillan]

So it's 50/50?

Foul after foul, mistakes and someone doing the unexpected. Don't blame the referees anymore (I'm not suggesting you did), everybody makes mistakes and shit happens.

:? Is your perfect game a 0-0? Because mistakes and defensive errors are what lead to goals. BBC and SKY analyse the shit out of games and all they talk about are mistakes, he should have got tighter, he left his man free, he tracked the ball not his man etc etc...

Forcing a team to make mistakes is what leads to goals.

BBC and SKY are pessimists!

0-0 could be perfect game but not necessarily perfect result. 0-0 could be really entertaining game with some spectacular goalkeeping.

I don't know about forcing a team to make mistakes ...? Maybe we have different philosophy? Excellent team score spectacular goals, without the opposite side making any mistakes.

[Mr_Dogg]

So it's 50/50?

Foul after foul, mistakes and someone doing the unexpected. Don't blame the referees anymore (I'm not suggesting you did), everybody makes mistakes and shit happens.

:? Is your perfect game a 0-0? Because mistakes and defensive errors are what lead to goals. BBC and SKY analyse the shit out of games and all they talk about are mistakes, he should have got tighter, he left his man free, he tracked the ball not his man etc etc...

Forcing a team to make mistakes is what leads to goals.

BBC and SKY are pessimists!

0-0 could be perfect game but not necessarily perfect result. 0-0 could be really entertaining game with some spectacular goalkeeping.

I don't know about forcing a team to make mistakes ...? Maybe we have different philosophy? Excellent team score spectacular goals, without the opposite side making any mistakes.

Well no, every goal could be stopped when you analyse, an interception there, a tackle here. Maybe 5% of goals are spectacular.

[barry'sboots]

You are aware that you aren't in charge of aston villa don't you? Complaining about every little tactical decision on the internet is not going to prepare the team, no one from aston villa football club is looking for tactical advice from VT.

Shit. That's ruined my season then. I thought MON was on here looking at my posts. Of course I'm aware of that! I am just trying to have a discussion on a discussion forum and struggling to find anyone who will come back and argue in favour of MON's decisions who can say anything more than "Do you think you know better than a premier league manager?". I am looking for someone to argue convincingly that we are correct to play a 4-4-2 in away games and to only substitute JC for Emile. Please Big John, show me the light.

How can you have a healthy debate with people who truly believe they could do better? You've done nothing but point out tactical faults that MON has done in every single game, even games we've won and you've stated that without those mistakes villa could be top of the league. How can you debate with someone who thinks they could lead villa to top of the league?

Well maybe you start by pointing out the weaknesses in my argument or criticisms of MOn's tactics as I have said above. You tell me why MON's team selections and tactics were right for Wigan, Blackburn and Wolves. You tell me why he would have been wrong to make a substitution against Citeh and put, say NRC, in to prevent Ireland from pulling the strings. Then maybe we can have a debate about football. I might not change your mind and you may not change mine but it could be interesting, just try it, eh?

[alienvillan]

So it's 50/50?

Foul after foul, mistakes and someone doing the unexpected. Don't blame the referees anymore (I'm not suggesting you did), everybody makes mistakes and shit happens.

:? Is your perfect game a 0-0? Because mistakes and defensive errors are what lead to goals. BBC and SKY analyse the shit out of games and all they talk about are mistakes, he should have got tighter, he left his man free, he tracked the ball not his man etc etc...

Forcing a team to make mistakes is what leads to goals.

BBC and SKY are pessimists!

0-0 could be perfect game but not necessarily perfect result. 0-0 could be really entertaining game with some spectacular goalkeeping.

I don't know about forcing a team to make mistakes ...? Maybe we have different philosophy? Excellent team score spectacular goals, without the opposite side making any mistakes.

Well no, every goal could be stopped when you analyse, an interception there, a tackle here. Maybe 5% of goals are spectacular.

Well that's the beauty of the game. It's not like chess. You can't analyze during the game, well as a spectator, yes, but as a player, no.

After the game we can analyze as much as we want - as we do, actually, but that's hindsight, no effect.

In theory every goal could be stopped. But "on the other side of the coin", in theory, you could also score from every position.

Damned, now I'm the optimist.

[blandy]

Blandy, put the semantics to one side and look at the core of what Commander is saying.

I have and I don't agree with what he has said.

Do you think that MON put out the right sides to beat Wigan, Blackburn and Wolves?

Wigan definitely not. Both before, during and after the game, I thought the team was horribly wrong. The other two games, I was fine with the team selections.

...do you think he should have made changes to those sides during the game when it was clear that we weren't playing well? Do you think MON should have responded to Mark Hughes bringing on Stephen Ireland? Do you think MON should have responded in the Rapid Vienna game when we were 2-0 up but clearly getting pressed back and they were making chances?

These are the games in which, IMO, MON's lack of flexibility/plan B was exposed.

They were games in which poor play was exposed, poor team selection, with hindsight, too, perhaps, but I'm not sure one way or the other. MO'N does not, in my view display "a lack of flexibility" at all. I mean the whole 4-5-1 thing was started by...er...MO'N. We change 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 and to 4-3-3 during games, players move positions Gabby goes left, or to the right, Ash into the middle or onto the right and so on. It's IMO absolute rubbish to accuse MO'N of a lack of tactical flexibility.

The Plop game was spot on - he has now built a strong squad that he used to play the 4-5-1 away from home that many had been craving for a long time and got the deserved result. The Chelski game was a great first 60 minutes and then we looked under the cosh. I would have liked to see an extra man in the CM to shore things up - Martin obviously didn't and got away with it IMO - we could have drawn/lost that if Deco and/or Anelka had their shooting boots on in the last half hour.

Of course teams will have off days when things don't go right BUT that, for me, is when a manager really earns his corn by recognising where things aren't maybe working and trying to do something about it - changing formation, making a sub etc.. These, of course, won't always work but better, IMO, to try something and get a result some of the time than not to try and get the same poor performance for the rest of the game 100% of the time? The better managers will get it to work more often than the poorer ones! To MON's credit he even demonstrated that he is capable of doing this in the Blues game and it worked. I just wish he'd try this more often?

He does try it often, maybe some people don't see it? I mean it's not like we're constantly losing games, we've been getting decent results, mostly.

I think you are also confusing some matters with your comparison as it is not as simple as just saying they lost to poorer sides e.g. Spurs lost to Stoke but should have beaten them about 7-0 judging by the commentary as they dominated the game but just couldn't score. We haven't done that in our two losses or the Wolves game as far as I am aware?

I agree with the point about dominating games. Frankly this is what does concern me about the way Villa play. We don't generally if ever, dominate possession, we don't keep the ball particularly well, we don't pass that fluidly - it's often a bit laboured. The team is set up to break quickly from defensive positions and work needs to be done to create more chances against packed defenses, and to stop our midfield being over-run at times.

The argument that "we should play 4-5-1" doesn't really address most of these issues, apart from maybe stopping us get over-run in midfield at times - but the other problems are likely to be worsened if we were to rigidly stick to 4-5-1.

I don't think we "got away with it" against Chelsea. We deservedly won against a very good side. I also think saying things like "I would have liked to have seen an extra man played here, but MO'N didn't...and got away with it" comes across (unintentionally) as "I know better than the manager" - which clearly none of us do. It doesn't help persuade when the tone seems (unintentionally) to have an inflated sense of knowledge. I think this is what Big_John has alluded to.

[barry'sboots]

Blandy, thanks for that response.

They were games in which poor play was exposed, poor team selection, with hindsight, too, perhaps, but I'm not sure one way or the other.

I am not sure what you are saying here? You say that there was poor team selection but then say you are unsure. I think we need someone more aggressive/energetic/robust in CM against the likes of Blackburn (and Bolton and Stoke etc when those games come). IMO, if you want to keep Stan in there then this dictates a 4-5-1, which had worked perfectly in Plop and well against Blues, with an impact sub/change to win the match - the two away games before.

MO'N does not, in my view display "a lack of flexibility" at all. I mean the whole 4-5-1 thing was started by...er...MO'N.

Hardly rocket science at the time. He had one fit striker, Gabby, so used 4-5-1 and it worked well away from home. As soon as JC was fit/Emile arrived he discarded it?

We change 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 and to 4-3-3 during games, players move positions Gabby goes left, or to the right, Ash into the middle or onto the right and so on. It's IMO absolute rubbish to accuse MO'N of a lack of tactical flexibility.

I agree that Gabby, Ash and Jimmy have become much more flexible and are interchangeable and I do like to see this. It worked well for Utd in the Rooney/Ronaldo/Giggs era and I think it will work well for us. This for me is different to the 4-5-1 though where MON has tried getting JC to drop in and help out in CM e.g. against. For me, we do not have the forwards to do this at the minute and, if he wants an extra body in there then I believe he should be getting NRC/Craig or Fabian on the pitch.

He does try it often, maybe some people don't see it? I mean it's not like we're constantly losing games, we've been getting decent results, mostly.

I do agree with this. But we are a top 8 side and should not be losing many. I think we could have lost less games which would be fantastic? This thread, for me, is about discussing whether we can become a top 4 side and what we need to do to get there and whether MON can take us there.

I agree with the point about dominating games. Frankly this is what does concern me about the way Villa play. We don't generally if ever, dominate possession, we don't keep the ball particularly well, we don't pass that fluidly - it's often a bit laboured. The team is set up to break quickly from defensive positions and work needs to be done to create more chances against packed defenses, and to stop our midfield being over-run at times. The argument that "we should play 4-5-1" doesn't really address most of these issues, apart from maybe stopping us get over-run in midfield at times - but the other problems are likely to be worsened if we were to rigidly stick to 4-5-1.

Sorry, I must seem really argumentative but this doesn't concern me at this stage. My point was that not all of the big teams deserved to lose against the poorer teams but you will get bad luck some days and I can accpet that and expect it ocassionally - that was not the story of the Wigan, Blackburn or Wolves games though? We had significantly less possession against Plop but them relatively comfortable. When I referred to domination I meant in terms of chances. I think the way that we are set up, with pacy forward(s)/wingers means that we will probably have less possession most of the time, even if we play 4-5-1, if we are trying to release them quickly. I am talking about using 4-5-1 in selective circumstances:

- away against aggressive bullying teams like Stoke, Bolton and Blackburn, very good teams or teams that also play 4-5-1.

- at home when we are in the lead and the CM is starting to tire.

I don't think we "got away with it" against Chelsea. We deservedly won against a very good side. I also think saying things like "I would have liked to have seen an extra man played here, but MO'N didn't...and got away with it" comes across (unintentionally) as "I know better than the manager" - which clearly none of us do. It doesn't help persuade when the tone seems (unintentionally) to have an inflated sense of knowledge. I think this is what Big_John has alluded to.

I think we deserved to beat Chelski and played the better football. Indeed we should have been 3-1 up (or more) against 10 men coming in to the last 30 minutes. What I was saying is that we could have drawn/lost because they had a number of chances in the last 30 minutes.

What really annoys me about this post and a number of Big John's is that you are both saying that none of us can express an opinion that is different to MON's without being arrogant and deluded. I thought this was the whole purpose of a discussion forum on football? Football is massively subjective and not one of us will agree on everything I suspect. But to say that we can't express our own opinions on the game as none of us can know better than MON is wrong IMO.

I do think I am student of the game and love discussing it. Sometimes I will change my views or look at things differently when shown the error of my ways. Maybe I do think I could do a better job than certain managers some of the time but more likely the fact that I am sitting on my arse typing this to you whilst MON is doing it and earning £'000'000's of pounds shows that I am not. I don't think this should stop me posting my thoughts on my team on a Villa discussion site though?

[blandy]

What really annoys me about this post and a number of Big John's is that you are both saying that none of us can express an opinion that is different to MON's without being arrogant and deluded...

No. I'm certainly not saying that. Dunno where you get that from because it's complete bollocks. I haven't said it and I won't say it. I don't believe it.

What I said is that if someone phrases things in a certain way it can appear that rather than expressing their views as a fan, they come across as claiming to know better, and be wiser than the manager. Which is utterly laughable and makes me think they're a gibbering idiothole.

I'm not trying to stop anyone passing whatever comment they like.

Here's a hypothetical example of the same point put 2 ways.

1. MO'N is incapable of seeing what anyone with any reasonable level of football knowledge can see, that like I have been saying for months, we should have put NRC on instead of Heskey.

2. I was hoping he'd bring NRC on, rather than Heskey, because I felt we needed more steel in midfield, rather than to replace on forward with another.

Both state essentially the same point, but the first suggests that the poster thinks he knows more about football than our manager, whilst the second better explains the posters opinion without making any claims about superior intellect or tactical knowledge.