Scientific Experiment V3#06-G.Houllier Approval Ratings

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

but 100% winning ratio is hardly something anyone can be unhappy about? I don't get that.

It wasn't. We won 2 drew 2 lost one. Houllier wasn't present for two of those games but his influence certainly was felt as we were managed by the coaching staff he appointed, we set up formation wise and tactically the way he wanted and we most certainly defended in the fashion we have since he arrived. In fact the performances and results had Houllier written all over them.

But he wasn't in charge of the games. That's it. You know, against West Ham, he bought Gabby on and he went onto win the game. Against Stoke, Gary Mac took off Downing and also waited until way too late to bring on Gabby. Then in the West Brom game, bought on Pires at 1-1, we don't know what would have happened had he been there. It's simply speculation.

He wasn't there for the games and that easily could have been the difference between 1 point and 3 points or 0 points and 3 points, just as it could have made no difference whatsoever. Impossible to judge but at least it gives you a slight excuse..

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

....because we all have different standards.

Quite. Yet you seem to be trying to dictate the standards by which people answer the question asked so you are kind of contradicting yourself.

More so because of the previous threads.

I could bring up plenty of comments of "how can you say yes, we didn't win a game" ...which was true, I voted no also but then suddenly, these people in this thread are now looking at the 'bigger picture' ...

everyone has different standards, sure...but 100% winning ratio is hardly something anyone can be unhappy about? I don't get that.

I can't speak for others but I was voting no in the previous threads and I voted no in this one too despite him winning the two games. His performance over those games didn't meet with my approval some of his decisions during those games were terrible and I didn't really think a great deal of the performances either especially given the opposition.

The point is as you said we all have different standards and as such I would take issue with anyone appearing to dictate how others should vote or reach their conclusion not just you in this instance.

I've voted no and I'm perfectly happy with my decision to do so just as I was in previous months, if others think different then fair enough so be it.

Okay but I just don't get it personally, what did you want to see from the month that you would 'vote' yes to?

[TrentVilla]

Okay but I just don't get it personally, what did you want to see from the month that you would 'vote' yes to?

Oh I don't know, perhaps no Pires on the bench, a defence that looks like it knows what it is doing and is able to see out matches and keep clean sheets. I'd love us to remember how to defend set pieces and remember that once upon a time we used to be really dangerous on our own. I'd like players in their correct positions (which we've had lately), I'd like cup games taken seriously, I'd like good substitutions made rather than baffling ones, I'd like to listen to post match interviews and think 'yep this guy is taking us somewhere', I'd like to like our manager.

Those things would all be a start.

As you said, we all have different standards. Beating two shite sides in Newcastle and West Ham just isn't up to mine.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Okay but I just don't get it personally, what did you want to see from the month that you would 'vote' yes to?

Oh I don't know, perhaps no Pires on the bench, a defence that looks like it knows what it is doing and is able to see out matches and keep clean sheets. I'd love us to remember how to defend set pieces and remember that once upon a time we used to be really dangerous on our own. I'd like players in their correct positions (which we've had lately), I'd like cup games taken seriously, I'd like good substitutions made rather than baffling ones, I'd like to listen to post match interviews and think 'yep this guy is taking us somewhere', I'd like to like our manager.

Those things would all be a start.

As you said, we all have different standards. Beating two shite sides in Newcastle and West Ham just isn't up to mine.

Well we conceded 1 goal in the 2 games.

1 clean sheet.

We haven't had a cup game.

Players have been in correct positions (as you said)

Good substitutions - Gabby coming off the bench to score vs West Ham.

....a lot of the things you wanted were in the two matches.

[TrentVilla]

You asked me a question, I answered it. The question asked in the thread is subjective, I have my opinion as do you and others. My initial point was that simply because we had won two games in which he was in charge its not a given that people have to vote yes as you were suggesting.

So far it would seem the majority disagree with you on this one.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

You asked me a question, I answered it. The question asked in the thread is subjective, I have my opinion as do you and others. My initial point was that simply because we had won two games in which he was in charge its not a given that people have to vote yes as you were suggesting.

So far it would seem the majority disagree with you on this one.

Yeah but I asked you a question, your answer was full of things that Houllier has achieved this month (as well as 2 wins)...and yet you vote no.

So he fits the criteria and yet he doesn't get a yes. Either your answer to my question isn't what you mean or simply you voted for the wrong option.

[TrentVilla]

I have answered your question and from my perspective I voted for the correct option.

As I said its subjective, its subjective that Houllier has achieved those things. That he has is your opinion not mine. I voted no and I'm sticking with it. Your criteria as you've already said is purely results so its hardly surprising that we don't agree and neither will we if we continue this for X number of pages.

You are welcome to your criteria and how you reached your vote so to am I and everyone else that voted no.

There really isn't anything left for either of us to add I certainly haven't.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

I have answered your question and from my perspective I voted for the correct option.

As I said its subjective, its subjective that Houllier has achieved those things. That he has is your opinion not mine. I voted no and I'm sticking with it. Your criteria as you've already said is purely results so its hardly surprising that we don't agree and neither will we if we continue this for X number of pages.

You are welcome to your criteria and how you reached your vote so to am I and everyone else that voted no.

There really isn't anything left for either of us to add I certainly haven't.

I still don't buy it. I can get you say it's subjective, I agree with that but I don't agree in how you come out to your conclusions.

You ask us to see out matches and keep clean sheet - We did. (That isn't anyone's opinions, we did, we beat Newcastle 1-0, holding on and a clean sheet)

Good subs - We bought on Agbonlahor who scored the winner against West Ham, in what way can that not be a good substitution?

Cup games - nothing to do with this month.

Players in correct positions - You admitted yourself, it's been done.

In your own words:

Beating two shite sides in Newcastle and West Ham just isn't up to mine.

Therefore, are you willing that there was nothing that could have happened within this month that would have made you vote 'yes' ...

Yes, you answered my question but that doesn't mean I can't question it when your answer seems very flawed. I get it's your opinion but that's what I'm questioning and I don't think you've answered my questioning of your views at all. You've just told me that it's your opinion.

[TrentVilla]

You seem only to be using the examples from my list that fit your arguement, why is that I wonder.

Anyway see my previous post.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

See my previous post.

But you haven't answered anything. You are just trying to get out of everything easily.

I'm asking why he hasn't achieved those things in your opinion.

You said what you wanted to see, I've pointed out that you've seen those things and all you can come out with is "It's my opinion"

extremely weak and if I'm honest, I think you know yourself that what you've said doesn't really hold much ground.

[TrentVilla]

If you say so.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

You seem only to be using the examples from my list that fit your arguement, why is that I wonder.

One's missed out:

perhaps no Pires on the bench.

If that's something he can be most criticised for within a month, I'd say that the other things must be going quite well.

I'd love us to remember how to defend set pieces

Didn't concede directly from a set-piece last month. Achieved?

and remember that once upon a time we used to be really dangerous on our own

No clue what that means to be honest???.

, I'd like to listen to post match interviews and think 'yep this guy is taking us somewhere', I'd like to like our manager.

See Pires, if post match interviews are the biggest problem within the month, I'd say it's getting desperate.

There you go. Answered.

[Bazdavies79]

Finally set up the side as I've been saying he should week in week out and what do you know, we start playing much better (I should be a bloody manager). Then his health failed, and as harsh as it is, it counts against him. I don't approve of a man with a heart condition being in the job on a human level, quite apart from nything else. So it's a no.

[Mantis]

Finally set up the side as I've been saying he should week in week out and what do you know, we start playing much better (I should be a bloody manager). Then his health failed, and as harsh as it is, it counts against him. I don't approve of a man with a heart condition being in the job on a human level, quite apart from nything else. So it's a no.

So in other words you don't approve of the job he's done over the last 28 days because he's had heart problems and hasn't immediately resigned?

[Houlston]

So we have 2 wins, 2 draws and a defeat, which over the course of a season is around 60pts. Only 4 less than we had last year which was our highest points total for years. Also good enough over the years for a place between 4th and 7th. During this 28 days you can not deny the club has been through more turmoil, regardless of fault if you want to a point a finger, it has been through turmoil. This would have had an effect on two of our games I cant see how people can just dismiss it as they have, what happened was very serious. The performance yesterday was poor, as was the subs, as was some of the players attitudes. No one knows if GH gave the instructions on the subs, he most certainly didnt give a team talk and maybe he might of called the team differently had he been around at training. The problem is we dont know but its all very black and white to some on VT with assumptions being made all over the place. All I do know for certain is that the games he was in charge for and definately called ALL the shots we acquired 7 of 9pts.

[Bazdavies79]

Finally set up the side as I've been saying he should week in week out and what do you know, we start playing much better (I should be a bloody manager). Then his health failed, and as harsh as it is, it counts against him. I don't approve of a man with a heart condition being in the job on a human level, quite apart from nything else. So it's a no.

So in other words you don't approve of the job he's done over the last 28 days because he's had heart problems and hasn't immediately resigned?

Yeah, more or less. It's harsh, but it's life.

[Mantis]

Finally set up the side as I've been saying he should week in week out and what do you know, we start playing much better (I should be a bloody manager). Then his health failed, and as harsh as it is, it counts against him. I don't approve of a man with a heart condition being in the job on a human level, quite apart from nything else. So it's a no.

So in other words you don't approve of the job he's done over the last 28 days because he's had heart problems and hasn't immediately resigned?

Yeah, more or less. It's harsh, but it's life.

But why resign immediately instead of just at the end of the season? It's not his fault he had to go into hospital and I don't think it would be fair if he just resigned there and then, as it leaves a lot of uncertainty while there are still games left to play.

[Bazdavies79]

Well the issue of his resignation is secondary. He was not well enough to take charge of two games, it may have cost us points - it's harsh but how can that not possibly be a negative?

[Cracker1234]

I'm shocked at all the non's 2 wins and a draw under Houllier this month and people still say no...Hmm I'm sure you must be voting on the whole season not on this month.

[jackbauer24]

I'm shocked at all the non's 2 wins and a draw under Houllier this month and people still say no...Hmm I'm sure you must be voting on the whole season not on this month.

I voted no. And I voted no based on this month alone.

To suggest Houllier's remit only extends from the touchline from kick off to full-time is remarkably short-sighted.

Yes, he's ill. We all wish him well etc. But the facts of the matter are he appointed the backroom staff who aren't performing and therefore that effects the games whilst he's absent. There have been no sweeping changes to suggest that this is GM's Villa now - it's still Houllier calling all the shots basically, just in a diminished sense. Training will be the same, formations will be the same and he still has to take responsibility even when absent.

Put it this way; if I go off sick as some more evidence of my poor management comes to light do I escape all criticism because the 'cover' was in that day?! It's still my work fundamentally and everything that has happened in April, regardless of him being ill, is his responsibility.

If people can blame MON six months into the season how can you not blame Houllier two weeks after he goes off ill? And the last few games are still, ultimately, Houllier's responsibility - either through long term management failures or simply because he employed GM.