Supers in the recent interview with McNally the club posted he said that plan was formed for the benefit of the financial institutions who loaned us money. Not really for the fans, this I would imagine this was also the reason it was published, seems an odd thing to tell the fans incase it went wrong. He said there isn't really a new 7 year plan in place as we have no external debt. Although I reckon it would look identical to yours if we did write one down.
@Hucks for Manager Sorry, squire, but I can't agree with this. RvW was isolated and had two (2) meaningful touches in 90+ minutes. That, to me, says that Hughton is terrified of committing men forward to give the dude some help. Just because he cost £8+m doesn't mean he can walk on water. A scuffed effort from Elmander and RvWs effort blocked by Danny Rose were our sole attempts at goal in the entire match. How can you possibly say that says nothing about his 'desired style of play'? (Not having a pop, just playing devil's advocate for any Villa fans who happen to be trawling our forum )
no, i realise that bath. i just wonder if it might help focus some of the fans minds on what the club is doing right now. some seem unable to comprehend the fact that we are only just starting out on quite a long road - some seem to think we should be the finished article already! the 7 year plan, though not per se for the fans benefit, actually did a lot of good as every fan got behind it, understood what the club were aiming for, how long it could take and why decisions were made when they were made. there will be a plan of action, involving the ground as well as footballing aims. its probably not as exciting though!
amazing!! he played two strikers. he wanted to get a result from that game! unfortunately it wasn't to be because a) spurs came flying out of the blocks, b) we couldn't get a grip of the game, c) we couldn't keep the ball when we did get it hughton wasn't the one misplacing his passes. if anything, he set us up too attacking and needed another body in midfield.
Just a quick observation, but it does actually take time for new players to gel playing in a competitive environment (what happens in training is irrelevant once you walk out on the pitch), at the end of Game No. 10, we will have a good idea of what positions (if any) need to be strengthened in January
Didn't see the game so was making my comment based solely on what people have said on here (see Supers comment above and you can see why I reached said conclusion). However, do you remember when we played Spurs at Carrow Road in our first season back in the Premier League? We were outplayed from start to finish, had one shot on goal and lost... 2-0. And who was our manager? Ah right, the swashbuckling, happy-go-lucky, all out attacking boss that is Paul Lambert. Sometimes, Cromer, the opposition are simply too good.
I fully agree that we a long term view at that progress will be slow. We need to use these "early years" as it were wisely building a really solid platform. Putting our selves in the position to increase the stadium and the improve the academy. Doing this without external finance is both a blessing and a curse. We have nobody heavily invested demanding instant results, sacking managers when we don't get to cup finals, buying players they had heard of 5 years ago and paying vastly inflated wages. However our exposable income, for want if a better word, is limited so we can only focus on one area at once currently it's playing staff and not even everything we would like there. In the future it will be the stadium and infrastructure. We could build something very special here and there is a reason McNally is one of the highest paid MDs in the premier league.
Don't say that Goldeneye, last time I mentioned the idea of new players gelling I got shot down, both barrels. I do agree though.
i'm not one who buys into the 'needs time to gel' thing. it is relevant, and the more new players you have, often the longer it takes to get an understanding but for me, only defenders really take a lot of time to gel as a unit - that can be worked on every week in training but its matches where you find out if its working or not. midfield to a lesser degree but they can usually hit it off early on as a lot of it is down to individuality with the more attacking players. some probably disagree
Think it was on the "How long do we give him thread?", might have been carrabuh, or one of his cronies lol, I am of the same opinion as on that thread really, I say lets see how the land lies after 10 matches we can all have another slagging match then!
the area we haven't quite clicked is supply to our striker. rvw's movement is excellent and i wonder if pilkington, who is a clever player, might be key to playing him in more. that is a case of 'gelling' which hasn't quite happened as yet, but it will.
Too true. As I said on the 'Boys versus Men' thread, 5 or 6 would have been a fair result and hats off to Bassong in particular for keeping it to 2 - 0. Last year, as Supers and others have pointed out, he tightened up the defence and it resulted in an improvement in clean sheets attained. Using the same yardstick, improving the forward line should, in theory, lead to more goal attempts, whether on or off target. I know we've not had a good look at Hooper yet, so hopefully this will be addressed over the next few games - starting on Saturday, ideally. But Bradley Johnson (bless him, he works his socks off) is by a margin our poorest passer of the ball, yet is ever-present. Fox, possibly one of our best passers, whose presence would benefit RvW no end, doesn't get a look in. So, from a tactical point of view, that doesn't make sense. To me. That's all I'm saying.
To me Supers, Pilks would be an excellent player to have "in the hole" behind RvW or Hooper - he has movement, vision, can shoot with both feet (as opposed to someone like Wes who only uses the left peg) and is useful with his head. Pilks needs to have more of an active role as sometimes he goes to sleep on the wing - I'd love to see him given a go in the attacking midfield role - he could just be the "misisng link".
I'm not saying Fox is a poor player, but when Bradders has the ball it takes a tank to knock him off it, whereas you only have to look sternly at Foxy and you've won it off him!
Yes, mate, I know, but I'm trying to find ways of getting our new strike force involved in the game which so far, as we know, they haven't been sufficiently. Not sure old threepenny bit foot Bradders (he must have taken over the mantle / poisoned chalice from Leon Barnett) is the answer in that regard. I hope to see Fer and Tettey starting on Saturday?
but he hasn't revamped the supply line as much as everyone would have liked. toivonen, yes that man again, was a key player we missed out on in that respect
i mentioned on another thread i'd like to try redmond in the hole but equally pilks would be adept there
i think in an ideal world, johnson and tettey would both be replaced by a more gifted footballer in that position, to play alongside fer, allowing the dutchman to rampage forward when the chance arises. for the time being i'm happy with either of the two but think tettey probably deserves a chance as johnson's form has been a bit 'iffy' of late
