Kid Icarus

Potentially opening a can of worms here but a lot of these absolutely ridiculous expectations as a consequence of the success the manager himself created out of nothing is starting to remind me a lot of how Southgate went from saviour to scapegoat within a couple of years. Some people do really seem like they'd be better off with low expectations that are set and met, than with higher expectations that achieve more but don't meet the expectations that have been set.

Frankfurt aren't vastly inferior in relation to the rest of the teams around them in Germany. In the Premier League I think the difference in quality from 5th to about 12th is very compressed as well, any of them are capable of thrashing each other (and sometimes beating the very top teams too) That's not to take away from Glasner's achievements though, it's again a defense of Howe.

Where's this? I remember it being the very rarely seen Tindall-driven signing and a bit of a punt.

If he'd flopped at Leeds I would still think he'd have done well here.

I was thinking more DCL just in the mix with the other two tbh. DCL and Vardy and that's it would have been mental.

N-O living in the mud with its takes on players.

I remember us going into the second last game of the season with 2nd place in our hands.

Amorim's also another (and probably the biggest) example of a manager who would have been sacked 3 or 4 times over by the people who want Howe out. He'd never have got to the point where anyone could even claim he's turned things around, he'd have been out on his arse after that loss to Grimsby.

Not saying this is what's happened here because I don't know, but I do know that he gets stuff from journalists that they wouldn't publish themselves.

Probably says a lot that we all think the problem is different but I think our problem is much more with players being on the same wave length for the final ball (particularly Woltemade and Gordon) and being in the right place to finish chances than it is with creating them in the first place. We break the lines way more often than you think, only for Murphy or whoever to cut it back to an opposition player, put in a good ball and there's no one there, or dink it to the back post and it gets cleared. If we can sort that out it'll make a huge difference. Chelsea first half looked like it was there, we just can't seem to keep hold of these things.

Definitely not, but each fanbase has its percentage of people whose memories are shorter than their patience.

As far as I can read there, your argument is that Emery is better than Howe and that you saying so makes it a fact, and that he makes tactical changes that are on-the-fly that work. I don't think you're making an argument there, let alone a convincing one. It just reads as another person who insists Emery's clearly the better option at the two clubs based on little to nothing. No one's undermining Emery, it's about giving Howe the credit he deserves. For all the people that thinks the sun shines out of Emery's arse, he's done no more at Villa than Howe has here, that's the actual fact. You think when Villa were sat in 11th last season that no Villa fans were picking out his flaws? That he hasn't himself been criticised for the same things Howe has? The player selection, the tactics, the subs etc? Of course he has. Or on the other side of the coin, that when we're winning our fans don't laud the tactical nous of Howe? No manager is flawless, Pep has been knocked out of competitions, including losing 3 finals, with many citing his habit for overthinking knock out matches and being his own worst enemy. He and Klopp have both been criticised and had to defend not having a plan B but instead their strategy of 'making plan A work'. He couldn’t buy a win for over a year in any match Rodri didn't play in. Last season they were sat in 7th during their own transition season, before they bought nearly a whole new team in January. Klopp likewise sat in 10th in 22/23. They have their flaws, Emery has his, so Howe's definitely going to have them, it's about whether you're willing to accept those flaws if the ends justify the means. 4th, 7th, 5th, 1 Cup, 2 CL qualifications, 2 finals all in 4 years while playing brilliant attacking football vs 4 months of the ends not justifying the means would suggest to me that it's a deal you snap hands off for. As a sidenote as well, Howe doesn't only play 433, one of the criticisms aimed at him is that he doesn't play it enough and instead plays 541. He played with 2 up front when we had Isak and Wilson too, he just hasn't done it with Woltemade and Wissa yet.

Where has this myth come from? Villa haven't done better than us (if they qualify for the CL this season they'll have equaled us and still be a trophy behind from when Howe/Emery came in) They also didn't start in the same circumstances at all. Emery inherented a squad that already had Martinez, Watkins, Konsa, Mings, Kamara, McGinn, Cash in it and had the Grealish money in its back pocket. Howe inhereted a squad that's only survivors are Schär, Murphy, and Joelinton - all of which are now past their peak age. Also, no reason we shouldn't be where they are now? Our positions have been 4th, 7th, 5th, theirs have been 4th, 6th. They're also not in the CL this season, last season they were in our position, and were in 11th come March. They'd have stayed there without their 5 incomings in January as well. I don't get how people look at Villa and immediately think they're doing better, they're not at all, and I don't think they've hit the peaks we have either. Pure grass-is-always-greener and insular thinking imo. For some reason there's this assumption that other teams never face adversity. We have it and regardless of the circumstances and the achievements of the manager, it's the manager that gets questioned.

Villa are a great example of what happens when winning becomes a habit. We've had it before when we haven't been at our best, but with Villa it's hard for me to remember a time I thought they played really well. Bayern and PSG the two big exceptions.

Was our first ever RW target under Howe IIRC

One win and they'll be more fickle than anyone, especially the main gobshite.

It's an argument for getting those players yeah. I don't think it means they can also be written off this quickly either though.

I know everyone who didn't rate the signings want to close for business on it and be right but its still only been 4 months into multiple 5 year contracts like.

I can't agree that he gets no service like. He gets a lot just from Jacob Murphy alone. I like him a lot but his box work on crosses has room for improvement.

Everyone above Howe has really escaped so much of the scrutiny in all of this like. Howe didn't just bail them out but also took nigh on all of the flack for the fallout from their lack of preparation.

Who's the club in that situation? Eales was on sick leave. Howe said he didn't know it was happening IIRC.

He left on the eve of the transfer window, apparently with absolutely no one having any hint it was going to happen until it did and leaving us in a position where we had no time to get a replacement. I wouldn't call that professional courtesy tbh, but agree to disagree.

I think at the very least we'd have operated more professionally and less leakily. All else being the same, I think we'd have been oblivious to some of the targets we missed because it would have been kept under wraps, or we'd have not wasted time targeting them in the first place. That was the big thing for me in the summer I think, just how leaky everything was.

Not answering to Howe doesn't negate everything that Eales could have done short of that that wouldn't have jeopardised working relationships with one of the most important people at the club, it was extremely unprofessional and self-sabotaging from Eales (if true) imo. Yeah, I think we're all happy to see the back of Mitchell, not least because even the timing of him leaving characterises what's so wrong about him. Wish more people had read that Monaco forum around the time he came here, it was basically all the stuff we say about him now.

Klopp and Edwards did often disagree, there's loads of examples of it, but Klopp came in before Edwards and I'd be stunned if Edwards was brought in without Klopp being in the loop and being given the opportunity to give his two penneth. I don't think Howe would have reacted like he did in that interview without Mitchell doing that car crash one first, but it was widely reported that Mitchell was hired without Howe being part of any discussions or even being in the loop until it had happened, and Howe's interview definitely pointed towards that being a problem - "as long as I'm happy and left to do what I do" or whatever it was. It was a braindead move by Eales really. No idea what he was thinking. With hindsight it looks like a power move with a terrible hire who everyone immediately disliked.