What's Tim doing?

[StartingPrice]

Sometimes, in my quiet moments, I sit in total stillness and imagine a World where folk had the gift of discernment. Not just a few folk, but, like, everyone, whenever they were discussing any issue. Y'know, the type of discernment that allows them to forget their petty little axe-grinding motivations, the ones that lead them into interpreting every single little thing as somehow justifying an argument they had years ago (and were usually wrong on, even if they never, ever accept it). Y'know, the type of discernment where they understand that football managers/head coaches aren't just all hired with exactly the remit or time scale. Where there is an understanding that one may be hired to turn results around with immediate effect, and another may be hired to implement a long term vision, and even if that leads to some short term adjustment. These different remits are not really comparable - but folk will insist on comparing them.

And then I visit SpursCommunity...LoL.

 

[stemark44]

Sometimes, in my quiet moments, I sit in total stillness and imagine a World where folk had the gift of discernment. Not just a few folk, but, like, everyone, whenever they were discussing any issue. Y'know, the type of discernment that allows them to forget their petty little axe-grinding motivations, the ones that lead them into interpreting every single little thing as somehow justifying an argument they had years ago (and were usually wrong on, even if they never, ever accept it). Y'know, the type of discernment where they understand that football managers/head coaches aren't just all hired with exactly the remit or time scale. Where there is an understanding that one may be hired to turn results around with immediate effect, and another may be hired to implement a long term vision, and even if that leads to some short term adjustment. These different remits are not really comparable - but folk will insist on comparing them.

And then I visit SpursCommunity...LoL.

Take a look at the football decisions made by the people in charge at Spurs for the last 3 years ..........then rethink what you just said.
These people couldn't run an under 9 team.

 

[spurs-r-us]

He did a good job, had the highest win ratio of any Spurs manager and was then sacked after finishing as well as could possibly have been expected. You go and get sacked from your dream job for doing nothing wrong, and see how you react.

 

[Mullers]

I've been think about this since you said it, Rout-Ledge, and that perhaps makes sense. Would he have got any offers if he had only been a caretaker? Maybe. He certainly would have seen his stock rise purely from being given the title of 'manager'. He would also have perhaps known that it needed to be longer than the end of the season in order to guarantee that he'd be taken seriously if/when he left.

I guess it's the difference between being an 'acting' manager on your CV, and actually being a manager. In civvie world, not football.

I don't know why the topic keeps being steered towards this whole "why isn't Poch getting better results than Sherwood". If it's not verbatim, it's heavily implied. I don't think anyone has ever argued the case that it was a purely "football" decision, and to me it's clear that Tim's problem with us was that he was a complete Maverick.

I read a piece recently on City and Pellegrini which was interesting. It was talking about how they are potentially suffering for appeal in the global market (commercial and fan based) because he's an ageing man with very little personality, and he doesn't make anyone like the club or interested in them.
It could well be that the club felt that his media rants, sitting in the stands, throwing Gilets around and squaring up to opposing managers was either:

a) damaging to the image of the club, and/or;
b) taking the focus off the team.

I really don't think telling the board to "wake up", when you fail to deliver something you'd openly sort of promised earlier in the season, is quite the way to get a stay of execution.

I think clubs get fed up of this quite frequently, as Van Gaal, Mourinho and Holloway are examples of big personalities that have historically left a bad smell behind with their odd/abrasive behaviour in front of the cameras.

I dont think that Sherwood is a maverick, he's his own man and not a yes man. Levy knew him well enough before he employed him, sitting in the stand was a bit of joke, but he was a manager learning his trade, some of his media rants were spot on and he certainly isn't the first manager to square up to opposing managers.
They did try to get Mourinho in the past, how the hell would they have coped with him if he got the job?
I don't care much about a manager being Maverick, I care about results, I care about winning trophies.

 

[newbie]

I never thought we should have sack jol we should hav backed him with a center back. Sherwood's tricky he was a maverick and would have alienated to many players ? No idea but he seems to get a response out of players

 

[Rout-Ledge]

I really don't think telling the board to "wake up", when you fail to deliver something you'd openly sort of promised earlier in the season, is quite the way to get a stay of execution.

I think clubs get fed up of this quite frequently, as Van Gaal, Mourinho and Holloway are examples of big personalities that have historically left a bad smell behind with their odd/abrasive behaviour in front of the cameras.

That was almost certainly a factor when considering the prospect of him staying longer than he did.

If Harry's mouthing off was bad, Sherwood's was worse. And his had the knock-on effect of alienating certain players.

Under Poch it seems that we are a team of equals. Nobody is given special treatment. Not the case with Sherwood.

The fact that we felt like a divided team with little to no identity when Sherwood left isn't a coincidence. Neither is it a coincidence that we now feel as if we're building something in the way of a new identity.

Again, I don't want to slag him off. He's not that bad and his ultimate influence here was probably more positive than negative. I certainly don't see him as a long term option though. More a shot in the arm. Let's see if he's still at Villa at the start of season 16/17. I'll be surprised if he is.

 

[Shanks]

Fair play to him, he's taken a team that looked ready for relegation and literally turned them around.

Very impressed by their performance against Liverpool at the weekend, and even more impressed with the team unity displayed by Villa.

Only 1 person can take the credit for that, and thats Sherwood,

 

[ethanedwards]

Sometimes, in my quiet moments, I sit in total stillness and imagine a World where folk had the gift of discernment. Not just a few folk, but, like, everyone, whenever they were discussing any issue. Y'know, the type of discernment that allows them to forget their petty little axe-grinding motivations, the ones that lead them into interpreting every single little thing as somehow justifying an argument they had years ago (and were usually wrong on, even if they never, ever accept it). Y'know, the type of discernment where they understand that football managers/head coaches aren't just all hired with exactly the remit or time scale. Where there is an understanding that one may be hired to turn results around with immediate effect, and another may be hired to implement a long term vision, and even if that leads to some short term adjustment. These different remits are not really comparable - but folk will insist on comparing them.

And then I visit SpursCommunity...LoL.

We all can't have your insight or wisdom, please enlighten us as to what the remits were.

 

[rich75]

That was almost certainly a factor when considering the prospect of him staying longer than he did.

If Harry's mouthing off was bad, Sherwood's was worse. And his had the knock-on effect of alienating certain players.

Under Poch it seems that we are a team of equals. Nobody is given special treatment. Not the case with Sherwood.

The fact that we felt like a divided team with little to no identity when Sherwood left isn't a coincidence. Neither is it a coincidence that we now feel as if we're building something in the way of a new identity.

Again, I don't want to slag him off. He's not that bad and his ultimate influence here was probably more positive than negative. I certainly don't see him as a long term option though. More a shot in the arm. Let's see if he's still at Villa at the start of season 16/17. I'll be surprised if he is.

That's one way of looking at it, on the other hand you could say that Sherwood treated everyone equal and ignored their price tags. In fairness to him scarcely any of the players he "froze out" have played much under Pocchetino either. Paulinho, Capoue, Soldado, Lamela aren't exactly regulars. Aside from Adebayor and Mason I can't think of any players who've seen a huge increase or decrease in playing time.

The only major difference is that Sherwood came out and said they weren't up to it whereas Pocchetino hasn't been asked the question. You could argue though that nobody would ask the question given the Sherwood said they were shite and Pochettino has scarcely made anyone think otherwise.

Sherwood got sacked because he didn't fanny around to then media and I would imagine behind closed doors and the club didn't like it. Fair enough, it's their club I guess.

 

[StartingPrice]

We all can't have your insight or wisdom, please enlighten us as to what the remits were.

I never pretended to being particularly wise, but thanks Certainly better than negging.

Off the top of my head, without delving too deeply into the subject: some managers/head coaches are hired to immediately turn around a string of devastatingly bad results, usually culminating in the sacking of the incumbent manager/head-coach, from whence the vacancy occurs. Others are hired with longer terms objectives in mind, usually with a view to the medium to long term, even if the short term (while, often, drastic changes are made) may be viewed as expendable - to a certain extent, and only to a certain extent. Frankly, I see little point in comparing the two, especially comparing the short-term results of the two. A primary objective with the former is to restore morale, to get confidence up both for individuals and as a team. With the latter, implementation of longer term strategy and the sorting of the chaff from the straw is more likely to be prioritised.

At Spurs we have seen both types: Mr Redknapp was of the former variety, results and morale were at rock bottom in the last days of Wandery Ramos, and Mr Redknapp came in and turned things round fairly quickly - and is most known for his rapport with players and confidence building, and least for implementation of longer term strategic goals (he, himself, readily admits this - as when he hired GHodd to give him tactical advice at QPR), or in his eschewing of the youth based focus of THFC in favour of hiring old players he could depend on. As far as I am aware, with the latter, his failure to buy into the youth focussed strategic vision at the club, was one of the factors leading to his dismissal. All the same, that he got nearly four years is testament to how well he did, even if his tactical and other failings began to weight heavier towards the end, and I could well understand that the several factors involved probably made it the right time to part company. I suppose Mr Jol and Mr Sherwood, himself, could be included to an extent as well (although I don't think results were the biggest problem with AVB). And we have seen the latter, most typically with Wandery Ramos, AVB and, now, with Pochettino (let's just hope it is third time lucky, eh!).

In any case, I don't see the point in comparing immediate results for the type who is there to immediately turn around a devastating run of results against those of the type who is in situ to implement medium to long term strategy.

Funny how when I made the above post it was on this basis alone, but some folk chose to read it as being in some way anti (or, indeed, pro) their arguments on a totally different subject. Just for the record, I was never vehemently anti-Sherwood, I made a detailed post explaining why I thought his appointment (in place of AVB) made sense (validated by JJ - whether that carries weight with anyone or not), and thought he did a reasonable, if erratic, job - picking up players like Adebayor, good, strange formations, particularly midfield formations (especially for a former midfield enforcer), not so good. Some of the things he said rang true, some of his antics were a tad embarrassing. He did a decent enough job, without being fantastic, and I can see why the club felt maybe he wasn't the one to implement a longer term strategy - but, much like Mr Levy, I would have been more than happy for him to stay at the club in some capacity. I did feel that his insistence on management of bust, especially at our level, is over-reaching a tad - he may have been better going lower-league for a while. But it is his career, good luck to him, and I certainly have no problems with him winning the FA Cup (don't think it proves anything about Pochettino, and not interested in axe-grinding, however).

So, there you have it, seeing a difference in remit between various types of manager/head-coach somehow means I need a lecture in someone else's tendentious version of recent club history when the two are not remotely connected - the former is just a fact independent of whether club X, Y or Z starts World War 3, invents the world's first intimate-area memory card reader, or fly to the Crab Nebula using their webbed toes and solar power. But folk with try to twist what they barely understand for their own axe-grinding purposes - which was, kinda, the point of the post in the first place.

p.s. If the two examples aren't satisfactory as a test group, I would also suggest that sometimes a manager/head coach is hired to keep things running on a n even keel, where the results haven't been dreadful but at the same time medium to long-term improvement, based on strategic vision, is not really expected or demanded either - say, for instance, while a stadium project is being put into effect. Indeed, some malicious tongues would have it that that is Poch's remit in reality, too.

So, different remits - not really comparable - nothing to do with pro/anti Sherwood lobby (excepting where pointless comparisons, due to differential remits, are being forced).

Hope that clarifies - and I'm sure you knew all of this anyway.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Jesus Christ, are we still talking about this ****?!

 

[chinaman]

Jesus Christ, are we still talking about this ****?!

If it's a good ****, it's worth talking about. But he ain't a good ****.

 

[eddiebailey]

Exactly.

Whatever way Sherwood tries to spin it, he knew it was a caretaker role. I don't really understand why he has such a bee in his bonnet about it, but hopefully with the cup final coming up he'll finally have something else to talk about other than Spurs.

Les has been very explicit that at the outset they believed they would be given 18 months to put their ideas into action and turn things round.

 

[stemark44]

Jesus Christ, are we still talking about this ****?!

Unfortunately for Spurs I think we will be talking about him for years to come.

 

[225]

Lol at 2:15 onwards...

 

[allatsea]

Needs to sort out his defence or they will get him relegated. Man City should have been 3 or 4 up inside the first 20 minutes. Credit to Villa for fighting back though.

 

[Syn_13]

Needs to sort out his defence or they will get him relegated. Man City should have been 3 or 4 up inside the first 20 minutes. Credit to Villa for fighting back though.

I recall it being similar with us when he took over. His methods are quite gung ho and he's definitely taken a lot of influence from Redknapp in the way that attacking is the main priority and defending becomes a bit of an afterthought. We attacked like headless chickens sometimes under Tim and it left us very exposed at the back sometimes.

I'm not sure Tim is defensively focused enough to plug those leaky holes at the back. He's taking the attitude of going out there and banging in goals, which becomes an "as long as we score more than them" attitude. A very different approach from the Pulis way of trying to keep a team from relegation, but we'll see how well he does.

 

[eddiebailey]

I recall it being similar with us when he took over. His methods are quite gung ho and he's definitely taken a lot of influence from Redknapp in the way that attacking is the main priority and defending becomes a bit of an afterthought. We attacked like headless chickens sometimes under Tim and it left us very exposed at the back sometimes.

I'm not sure Tim is defensively focused enough to plug those leaky holes at the back. He's taking the attitude of going out there and banging in goals, which becomes an "as long as we score more than them" attitude. A very different approach from the Pulis way of trying to keep a team from relegation, but we'll see how well he does.

I think the approach is partly based on Tim's footballing instincts, and partly on the realisation that making this Villa team hard to beat is not an option (God knows Lambert tried).

 

[Blake Griffin]

villa were the better team yesterday, apparently the first time in six years(although i can't believe it's that long) that city had the minority of possession at home in a league game as well.

 

[only1waddle]

villa were the better team yesterday, apparently the first time in six years(although i can't believe it's that long) that city had the minority of possession at home in a league game as well.

It was quite odd to see City sit back after they scored, played the 1st half as though they had a 3 or 4 goal lead, should of buried Villa in the opening 25.
Still, they won't make that mistake against us.