villa4europe Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier's Anfield incident wasn't as bad as McLeish's White Hart Lane incident yep, i also dont remember Ged playing for and being happy with low scoring defeats at home vs the top 4 the utd and liverpool games were sickening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 DOL whilst a complete tool, bell end gets some credit for a few decent signings - Laursen, Bouma & also for that win at long last at The Sty (1-0 Phillips) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier's Anfield incident wasn't as bad as McLeish's White Hart Lane incident They really were in different leagues on this McLeish was strictly Championship, Houliier was Chamions League. Don't forget the COMS incident, he sent out a team with ZERO motivation then appeared to blame it all on Lichaj (there he went again developing the youngsters) who he then banished to a loan deal at Leeds, at least McLeish can be said to have rehabilitated Lichaj to a degree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier turned them shite and no matter what those two did off the field under Houllier (which was innexcuseable) that would never have happened under MON. Under MON our defence was generally good, under Houllier with the very same players, it was an utter shambles. Only one man to blame there. sorry bicks but i dont agree with a manager "turning them shit" under mcleish they were just as awful defensively. the players themselve shave to take responsbility for being utter shite i agree regarding the point about lambert having to rebuild the squad. i think houllier was trying to do what avb was doing at chelsea but the players never responded to him and his silly behaviour like the liverpool incident and slating carew in public didnt help hi either. mcleish on the other hand was complete tripe, tactically poor, negative, worst style of football ive ever seen. hands down worse than houllier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier's Anfield incident wasn't as bad as McLeish's White Hart Lane incident yep, i also dont remember Ged playing for and being happy with low scoring defeats at home vs the top 4 the utd and liverpool games were sickening No, he went for a high scoring one at COMS a game sooooo bad, I left with about 30 mins to go and I've never done that before, going for low scoring defeats requires a team with some degree of motivation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 McLeish for me.. just awful in every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier's Anfield incident wasn't as bad as McLeish's White Hart Lane incident yep, i also dont remember Ged playing for and being happy with low scoring defeats at home vs the top 4 the utd and liverpool games were sickeningYep, and what about the Man City home game? Don't even think we tried until the last 5 minutes and were easily beaten 1-0. McLeish was visibly delighted at the end of it and tried to justify his ultra-negative approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2012 What exactly was the difference in style between Houllier and McLeish, they were both uber defensive long ball merchants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 It certainly didnt need tearing apart, the squad he inherited was mostly good and the bad rarely played, he turned good into bad. Dunne and Collins were a great partnership the year before, Houllier turned them shite and no matter what those two did off the field under Houllier (which was innexcuseable) that would never have happened under MON. Under MON our defence was generally good, under Houllier with the very same players, it was an utter shambles. Only one man to blame there. I also see this myth that Houllier was going to lead us eventually into playing great football and the players he bought and was going to buy some more great players still persists, where on earth does it come from, it's a fantasy, Houllier has consistently alienated players, bought huge swathes of utter shite and generally played negative long ball shite throughout his PL career as well as not developing any youth players apart from Gerrard whom he was handed on a plate. PL is the one that has to tear things up though McLeish should have done too but I'm not entirely sure it was in his brief. I agree with all of the above. As I posted during the Houllier regime, he was seen as a Walter Mitty figure, living on past glories and sticking his head in the sand when people tried to tell him things he didn't want to hear. As bad as the McLeish year was, the Houllier year was abysmal. Houllier was a cancer. And this from a man who was incredibly excited when he was appointed. How wrong I was.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier was a cancer. And McLeish wasn't? If Houllier damaged club and fan morale McLeish obliterated it. He's the definition of soul-destroying. He's the grim reaper of football. Not only the worst Villa manager in my life-time but one of the worst managers of any club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier is a "consultant" at Salzburg who were knocked out of Champions League by a team from Luxembourg :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Clapping the Liverpool fans and not the travelling Villa Sorry that's as low as it gets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daholteend Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 What exactly was the difference in style between Houllier and McLeish, they were both uber defensive long ball merchants Roughly about two touches and a pass bicks.. Under Houillier defenders were encouraged to get the ball , pass the ball to a wider defender who would then clog it upfield. Eck was more direct... Just clog it upfield but anywhere away from our goal preferably . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Houllier was a cancer. And McLeish wasn't? If Houllier damaged club and fan morale McLeish obliterated it. He's the definition of soul-destroying. He's the grim reaper of football. Not only the worst Villa manager in my life-time but one of the worst managers of any club. From a fan's perspective, I can see that McLeish would be seen in such a bad light. I had the "pleasure" of knowing some of the inner workings of the squad during Houllier's regime. That's why I called him a cancer. Everything he touched within the club went to shit. There were absolutely NO redeeming features about his time as manager, in my opinion. For what it's worth, McLeish never lost the dressing room to the same extent as Houllier did and I'm convinced that if McAllister hadn't taken over when he did, we were nailed on for relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 This is good stuff, we have nothing to moan about so we may aswell continue moaning about these 3 bellends. Ellis is always a backup option aswell. Then there is always tommy johnsons lack of pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daholteend Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 For what it's worth, McLeish never lost the dressing room to the same extent as Houllier did and I'm convinced that if McAllister hadn't taken over when he did, we were nailed on for relegation. I agree. I thought that Lerner and Faulkner might have done fairly well if they had been wise enough to keep McAllister after the job he did saving us from relly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amed Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Mcleish was the worst Houllier next Oleary- in fairness to him, that last season was poor but that chairman had to take the blame for that as well, never had we seen such poor investment in the team which led to him selling up to Lerner. I was prepared to give o'leary a chance with investment but he got the boot for his constant moaning to the press and lowering expectations (even if he had a valid point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moose Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Every time I see the name McLeish my heart sinks a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddywhack Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Who's moaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2012 What exactly was the difference in style between Houllier and McLeish, they were both uber defensive long ball merchants Roughly about two touches and a pass bicks.. Under Houillier defenders were encouraged to get the ball , pass the ball to a wider defender who would then clog it upfield. Eck was more direct... Just clog it upfield but anywhere away from our goal preferably . Yep so no real diffference at all at least under MCLeish, we'd give it to their defenders not their midfielders ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts