Tottenham Hotspur V Aston Villa : Monday 2nd November at 8PM

Sandie wrote:

GadgetMan wrote:I can't get my head around what is being said.

We think KMAC deliberately picked a side to prove some kind of point? Which was? (The summer recruitment process was wrong?) yet in doing so, he's made himself look stupid and proved that the best players at the club are in fact the very people who were bought with the process he disagreed with?....why would he do that? Answer me this, Would we be talking about it if sky hadnt flippantly said it??

Is  it so implausible that KMAC is such a dinosaur in modern football terms that he's just gone with a set of players he actually knows and has trained despite knowing it may not me the best XI at the club? But one he felt he could get the best out of with his skill set and delivery as an old school British coach.

I'm saying that he picked the team he thought was best suited to the task at hand, a team that had only one of our summer signings in it. Perhaps he doesn't yet have much faith in the new players? Perhaps he shared the misgivings that Sherwood had? I think he was very wrong. I think he actually managed to prove that we can't trust our experienced players and they are in fact part of the problem right under the watching eye of our new manager. No grand conspiracy, not going out to lose, just wrong.

If you worked for Aston Villa Industries for nearly two decades and they brought in a new policy and way of working that you disagreed with how would you feel? The head of department doesn't like the policy either, you get on with him (he brought you back to the firm after a spell elsewhere and is a nice guy) and he moans about it to you and you nod and agree with him. He's then sacked for the poor performance of the department and you're made the interim boss. What would you do? Would you use the new tools that you don't think will work as well? Or would you use the old ones that you thought worked better because you thought that was exactly what was needed to help the firm achieve its goals? Doesn't really matter much when a new department boss is coming in and he'll have his own ideas and you can go back to training the apprentices.

That's why I'm unhappy with what happened last night, it's where I think there's a division at the club and it's why I think KMac should NOT be sacked. Send him back to his old job (not at all related to first team selection and transfer matters) where he's got results and hope he isn't being given the interim position again in a couple of months.

If what you're saying is true though Sandie and he has blatantly gone against his seniors wishes, he deserves the sack, much in the same vein Tim and co were shipped out as they didn't buy into new ethos and couldn't make theirs work. How can you keep a man that is going to be responsible for developing youth for a club he doesn't believe in?! That's where the difference is for me. He had no agenda, he hadn't colluded with TS, he just in his own (inept and limited way) picked a team of players he knew, had coached before, spoken too, was familiar with etc! His crime? Not being bold enough, not being brave enough and not being good enough, BUT if he has used his time as interim boss to make a club political point, he should be shown the door asap!! There is no room for discontent. You're either with us or you're against us now. What people appear to be saying is he's against US, ie the club, Reilly and co. Get rid if that is what has happened with his last two games. I fully expect him to be sacked if what you're saying is correct. There's plenty others saying it, you're by no means alone. I just think we will see him sacked if it's true and if not he'll return to his role and thanked for stepping in once again (even though he's terrible at it)

Sandie wrote:

villabromsgrove wrote:Remi Garde was successful in bringing through young players at Lyon, and I'm sure that he won't dismiss the Academy system altogether, but he's only the head coach, and the new Villa policy will almost certainly prioritise cheap foreign buys.

I think the question is not 'how that will go down with Kevin MacDonald?' but 'how will that go down with Remi Garde?'.

Well he's signed a 3.5 year deal, so he's either in agreement with it (He did the same at Lyon until the rumours he quit over transfer policy) OR the club have agreed to modify the approach to his liking, all of which we don't know yet (and probably won't given how little Villa talk)

GadgetMan wrote:If what you're saying is true though Sandie and he has blatantly gone against his seniors wishes, he deserves the sack, much in the same vein Tim and co were shipped out as they didn't buy into new ethos and couldn't make theirs work. How can you keep a man that is going to be responsible for developing youth for a club he doesn't believe in?! That's where the difference is for me. He had no agenda, he hadn't colluded with TS, he just in his own (inept and limited way) picked a team of players he knew, had coached before, spoken too, was familiar with etc! His crime? Not being bold enough, not being brave enough and not being good enough, BUT if he has used his time as interim boss to make a club political point, he should be shown the door asap!! There is no room for discontent. You're either with us or you're against us now. What people appear to be saying is he's against US, ie the club, Reilly and co. Get rid if that is what has happened with his last two games. I fully expect him to be sacked if what you're saying is correct. There's plenty others saying it, you're by no means alone. I just think we will see him sacked if it's true and if not he'll return to his role and thanked for stepping in once again (even though he's terrible at it)

I think we're not as far apart as you are saying on this. You say he picked them because he knew them, I'm saying he did it as he thought it was the best team he could pick. He wasn't brave, he was wrong but at the end of the day he was manager and picked the team he wanted. It might not be as much a consequence of disagreeing with the policy at the end of the day but just not rating or not being sure of the new players.

Call me old fashioned, but I think the manager should pick the team he wants from the players he has available and then must stand or fall by the results that this achieves. KMac is not a football manager, he works in the academy. To sack him from that role solely on the basis of a team selection whilst acting up in someone else's job is wrong, IMO. The only thing he should be sacked from is his caretaker manager role. If it gets to the point that his opposition to it is so strong that it affects his ability to perform his academy role then he needs to go. If Garde feels he can't work with him he needs to go. If he talks to the press about policy (as one of Sherwood's people was almost certainly doing) to cause trouble for the club he needs to go. As things stand, I only see one poor, unsuccessful team selection and none of these things. Unless the rule is now that whoever the manager is must pick the club's choices? Do we give club policy primacy over someone's ability to do their job? KMac should be judged on how he performs in his actual job and not in one where's he's basically doing the club a favour by helping out.

Here's an (admittedly unlikely) hypothetical situation for you. Lets say we're a year forward and Garde has kept us up and 10 games into the early part of the 16/17 season we sit in a decent tenth, fans are fairly happy. The problem is, that a new batch of picks have come in and after a few weeks Garde has realised he doesn't think they're up to it. Our 10th place is the consequence of a team cobbled together from players who've been with the club a while, a couple of youth prospects and one summer arrival who was very much a choice of Garde. In that scenario should he be sacked for not following policy or do results and/or the fact he's a permanent manager mean he is less disposable? He'd also be going against club policy with his selections but judged on the team's performances he wouldn't deserve the sack.

GadgetMan wrote:Well he's signed a 3.5 year deal, so he's either in agreement with it (He did the same at Lyon until the rumours he quit over transfer policy) OR the club have agreed to modify the approach to his liking, all of which we don't know yet (and probably won't given how little Villa talk)

Aye.

Something important for me is that we don't know what actually goes on. The only idea we have of things is a bit of guesswork and leaks into the media which may not be accurate. I actually doubt that the scenario I gave above would actually happen. I think the manager has a lot more say than has been made out by the pro-Sherwood media. What we do know is that Remi will be happy with whatever setup is in place?

I think last night's side subscribed to the "you need premier league experience players when you are in a hole in the premier league" that all the ex pro premier league players subscribe to.

The reason I stuck with TS longer than most was because I think that we have some good players and, whilst I admit infrequently, we have seen some good performances. I thought then that what we were lacking in those areas could be coached in to them and it would not take much for professionals to do.

Against Leicester, Palace and Man Utd we had spells of the game when we looked really good. Chelsea only beat us because of gifts from 2 individual errors.

You win games in this league by not making mistakes and punishing the oppositions, Garde I hope will do this and I think if you look at our squad most have a Continental background and will feel comfortable with his ways and methods.

The issue with Villa is that they don't gel as a team. Players are pulled out of position with covering players caught in the corridor of uncertainty.

This only has to happen once or twice in a game in this league and you will be punished. Fitness is imperative, as is concentration, and also awareness.

It was something I could not understand with Lambert after his experience in Germany, discipline. German defenders defend, if they don't they are dropped.

Villa lack discipline.

Sandie wrote:

GadgetMan wrote:If what you're saying is true though Sandie and he has blatantly gone against his seniors wishes, he deserves the sack, much in the same vein Tim and co were shipped out as they didn't buy into new ethos and couldn't make theirs work. How can you keep a man that is going to be responsible for developing youth for a club he doesn't believe in?! That's where the difference is for me. He had no agenda, he hadn't colluded with TS, he just in his own (inept and limited way) picked a team of players he knew, had coached before, spoken too, was familiar with etc! His crime? Not being bold enough, not being brave enough and not being good enough, BUT if he has used his time as interim boss to make a club political point, he should be shown the door asap!! There is no room for discontent. You're either with us or you're against us now. What people appear to be saying is he's against US, ie the club, Reilly and co. Get rid if that is what has happened with his last two games. I fully expect him to be sacked if what you're saying is correct. There's plenty others saying it, you're by no means alone. I just think we will see him sacked if it's true and if not he'll return to his role and thanked for stepping in once again (even though he's terrible at it)

I think we're not as far apart as you are saying on this. You say he picked them because he knew them, I'm saying he did it as he thought it was the best team he could pick. He wasn't brave, he was wrong but at the end of the day he was manager and picked the team he wanted. It might not be as much a consequence of disagreeing with the policy at the end of the day but just not rating or not being sure of the new players.

Call me old fashioned, but I think the manager should pick the team he wants from the players he has available and then must stand or fall by the results that this achieves. KMac is not a football manager, he works in the academy. To sack him from that role solely on the basis of a team selection whilst acting up in someone else's job is wrong, IMO. The only thing he should be sacked from is his caretaker manager role. If it gets to the point that his opposition to it is so strong that it affects his ability to perform his academy role then he needs to go. If Garde feels he can't work with him he needs to go. If he talks to the press about policy (as one of Sherwood's people was almost certainly doing) to cause trouble for the club he needs to go. As things stand, I only see one poor, unsuccessful team selection and none of these things. Unless the rule is now that whoever the manager is must pick the club's choices? Do we give club policy primacy over someone's ability to do their job? KMac should be judged on how he performs in his actual job and not in one where's he's basically doing the club a favour by helping out.

Here's an (admittedly unlikely) hypothetical situation for you. Lets say we're a year forward and Garde has kept us up and 10 games into the early part of the 16/17 season we sit in a decent tenth, fans are fairly happy. The problem is, that a new batch of picks have come in and after a few weeks Garde has realised he doesn't think they're up to it. Our 10th place is the consequence of a team cobbled together from players who've been with the club a while, a couple of youth prospects and one summer arrival who was very much a choice of Garde. In that scenario should he be sacked for not following policy or do results and/or the fact he's a permanent manager mean he is less disposable? He'd also be going against club policy with his selections but judged on the team's performances he wouldn't deserve the sack.

Sandie wrote:
I raised an eyebrow when Sky said pre-game that there was politics and a divide going on at Villa at the moment. What I preceded to witness in the first half was proof of that actually being true with KMac (who I'm somewhat disappointed in) being one of the culprits. I think this divide exists between Sherwood coaches and some of our experienced players on one side with the new way of operating and the new, foreign players on the other. It's why Amavi didn't start, it is why we replaced an injured central midfielder with a striker when Veretout was on the bench and it's why, I think, this club are bottom of the Premier League. This is something that I think Garde needs to pay attention to and something I think that he certainly won't stand for it.

This is the bit right at the start that I'm basing my "if he has done that then he needs to be sacked" stance on. This to me (and other posts by others on this thread and certainly on twitter) implies he picked a side to prove a point a political point, with kMac 'being one of the culprits' IF that is true, then yes I think he should be sacked. We have no place for any dissent amongst the ranks and if he's openly picked a side to get across a certain viewpoint as opposed to the best side to win a football match (which for me, is the implication here) then he's guilty of gross misconduct (or whatever footballing term fits) and should be fired.  Results weren't ultimately what cost Tim his job so soon, I think he would have got more time, had he of been onside with the club's structure and policy, him and his team weren't and were sacked, so on this basis, so should KMac.

I DON'T however think he should be sacked for picking what he felt was the best side for the game, which is what I think he did (albeit a poor and incorrect side) however the accusation hasn't been that, the discussion has really been centered around a division within Villa between old and new and Kmac, perpetuating the problem with his selection. I maintain that I think he picked players he knew and trusted and worked with before and shouldn't be sacked for that. I only think he should be sacked if he's done what you appear to be saying he did.

Is that any clearer? I don't know if we're talking at crossed purposes here, but my only beef with kmac would be if he's openly followed TS lead of showing contempt to club policy in public (via his selection) I don't think he has done that though. I think he's a decent chap whose limited in what he can do and picked a very safe team full of British players that he knew, nothing more sinister than that. If that is the case, he needs to be educated and learn from Garde as this is now our structure and he has a part to play in developing the players brought into the club at a young age (from overseas most likely) if he isn't on board, he has to go. That applies to any member of staff, we all need to be pulling in the same direction now.

Point taken, however I'm not saying that he picked this team out of sheer spite. This so called divide is about the Sherwood coaches thinking that the experienced players are needed for the club to stay in the league. It's an opinion that shapes this idea that Monday's side was the right one and was not just him proving a point (implying that he picked a team who wasn't, in his opinion, our best). I was angry about that as I thought KMac was somebody who wouldn't have been so focussed on that idea, he'd have been more open to the new players. I think that belief in our experienced players was wrong, I think that our experienced players are a poor bunch who have let us down season after season and this is why I was particularly angry on Monday night.

The change in Villa's player policy, has made it impossible for us to continue with the same old ideas. I think we need to renew our back room team structure to reflect the challenges we are now faced with.

Same old, same old, has been the bane of Villa for the past five seasons. It's time to get out a huge new broom and sweep BMH free of the the old dusty ideas. In retrospect I think KMac and Parks unwittingly did AVFC a favour last week by highlighting this dinosaur aspect that has come to define everything we do.

Onwards and Upwards with new players, new manager and coaches, and new ideas.

villabromsgrove wrote:In retrospect I think KMac and Parks unwittingly did AVFC a favour last week by highlighting this dinosaur aspect that has come to define everything we do.

I think where a favour has been done on Monday night is in showing Remi a number of players that should not be in his plans. If Gabby's card has not been marked before by Duverne then it certainly will be now.

Sandie wrote:Point taken, however I'm not saying that he picked this team out of sheer spite. This so called divide is about the Sherwood coaches thinking that the experienced players are needed for the club to stay in the league. It's an opinion that shapes this idea that Monday's side was the right one and was not just him proving a point (implying that he picked a team who wasn't, in his opinion, our best). I was angry about that as I thought KMac was somebody who wouldn't have been so focussed on that idea, he'd have been more open to the new players. I think that belief in our experienced players was wrong, I think that our experienced players are a poor bunch who have let us down season after season and this is why I was particularly angry on Monday night.

That's totally understandable and I too was angry, just for what seems like very slight differences. Mine being KMac sheer incompetence at not being able to see we needed a different side picked and to be a little braver and go for it and that if anything else was behind his reasoning (which I can't rule out, I'm just trying to think he wouldn't be that guy after all his years here) then I have concerns about him shaping our youth. It essentially says to me he's only willing to develop certain youth, the ones he thinks have been recruited to his philosophy. That is not someone I want around the club and our youngsters. So therefore it was/is much easier to think in his limited capacity as a interm boss that took a heavy beating last time he was in the job, may well of bottled it a little and played a safer hand. He needs to be fully on board with both Garde's and the clubs ideas or he surely has no part to play? We all need to be pulling in the same direction.

Let me just add I was debating a point that has widely being accepted as fact on social media (the conspiracy to leave out the French players and prove a point) so my posts weren't solely aimed at your content more the wider context of the subject at hand. As always you've raised solid points in an eloquent manner. That said its good to debate and explore the differences and make each other think. I'm certainly more open to the suggestion that he has somehow used his moment in the spotlight to press home his views than I was the other say. That said I still think there would/will be repersuccions if that was/is the case.

I'm looking froward to seeing what Garde has to say at his PC tomorrow.

Sandie wrote:

villabromsgrove wrote:In retrospect I think KMac and Parks unwittingly did AVFC a favour last week by highlighting this dinosaur aspect that has come to define everything we do.

I think where a favour has been done on Monday night is in showing Remi a number of players that should not be in his plans. If Gabby's card has not been marked before by Duverne then it certainly will be now.

Agreed. Somebody suggested in Twitter that maybe KMac played all the British guys so Garde could see them first hand (as he would be more familiar with the French lads) I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it has dome is a favour for sure. If he was in any doubt before he won't be now. There are some very obvious starters and omissions for any avfc side out of the squad we have to pick from.

It seems as though three factions have developed due to language difficulties. English, French and Spanish. This should not have been allowed to happen, and reintegration needs to be taken care of quickly.

I think perhaps that with Sherwood being keen to be seen as a 'macho manager,' some of the caring aspects of integrating new individuals may have been overlooked.

My opinion for what it's worth is, I think KMac pure and simply bottled it, picked what he thought might get a draw at best, and really didn't know what to do with the players he left on the bench, maybe, because it's not in his remit, to be able to organise players and their tactics, such as the those left out.

That's not being disrespectful to him, he's been at the club, and done good work for a long time, but perhaps that's just it, a little bit stuck in the past perhaps? The talent not used was appalling, and completely lost us the game, I saw the line up and almost blew my top, a defeat was guaranteed, and it came, sooner than later after Clark's non defending.

But whatever the reason KMac had for that staring line up, it was the wrong one, simple as that, and everyone could see it was a mistake, except him. I'm not going along the route of the conspiracy theories that are being suggested, I sure he's not that vindictive or stupid.

villabromsgrove wrote:It seems as though three factions have developed due to language difficulties. English, French and Spanish. This should not have been allowed to happen, and reintegration needs to be taken care of quickly.

It might explain why Okore and Kozak are well out of the picture. They don't have a faction! Maybe they need to start a Villa Non-Alligned Movement.