Seemingly out of nowhere, Aston Villa’s wayward team of underachievers stepped up and played two of their best games of the campaign to close out with wins against Arsenal and Liverpool. What gives? The majority thought we’d get hammered. Twice.
I’ll confess to having no easy answers about this group. I’m not sure I even know what to think about them. But it seems clear that if the players are on the same page and are set out right that they can, with determination and a little luck, play some decent football.
Now, I enjoyed the sort of swashbuckling performances we got under O’Neill because we generally seemed in with a shout most games. There was an opportunistic air. We seemed dangerous and resilient. Martin O’Neill looked like he was trying to build a poor-man’s Chelsea. I didn’t think it was a terrible idea. Other supporters enjoyed the fact that Villa’s games were usually entertaining.
Even if, maybe because of the fact, we did count more than few smash-and-grabs among our victories, concede late goals, and display a troubling tendency toward the “heroic”/desperate defending that always followed sitting back and inviting pressure.
There was a lot to like…and various portents of trouble. The problems we saw on the pitch this year had already taken root. We saw it all come to a head in the summer. But we didn’t think it would blow up like it did.
Fast forward
One year later, we find ourselves in much the same state. Is our manager staying? Are we losing our “best” player again? Will we be squandering the close season? Have we made plans that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on? Is there really a plan at all? Can we move dead wood and improve the quality of the side? Are we ever going to be able to crack top four? The only difference is that whereas O’Neill’s departure was a shock, our current managerial uncertainty isn’t.
Even if he is fit, there are still many supporters who don’t want Houllier to return. I think it’s a bit harsh. We all know the litany of obstacles faced by the club this season. Where we seem to differ is in how much blame we assign Houllier.
Some things he might’ve done differently, I’m sure. Like the misunderstood affection he stated for Liverpool, and the rapid implementation of a style for which we simply lacked the players. He might’ve second-guessed trying to get Gabby on the field after Bent’s arrival. He might’ve second-guessed giving Ash such a long run in the hole. He’s a smart man. I’m sure he’s thought about all these things.
And in the final two games, we saw it gel a little. We took our chances. We were able to resist the opponent’s pressing, hold onto to the ball, knock it around and have some say about the tempo of the game. We pressed and tackled and injured and bloodied opponents. We moved forward quickly at times, others we were more deliberate.
For all those who doubted the football was getting better, I think they’d have to admit the final two games looked like the emergence of a side that was finally figuring things out. And that maybe Gary McAllister had taken a slightly unfair amount of stick. If you’re going to blame him for the West Brom result, you have to give him credit for Arsenal and Liverpool. Or at least give it to Houllier.
Where do Villa go from here?
The million-dollar question, isn’t it? We’re all waiting to hear about Houllier’s health. I’ll go on the record as saying I’d like to see him continue, if he’s truly fit.
I have my doubts about that, obviously, as we all do. But I like the idea of continuity. I like the idea that knowing the team as he does now, Houllier is well positioned to make the right personnel moves. He did well in January when the pressure was really on, and Lerner will be likely to back him further given how well his targets panned out. I like the idea that Villa are showing signs of being able to hold onto the ball and pass it.
People will roll their eyes, but I think with some more athletic CBs and a hole player, Villa can be successful with Houllier at the helm. I think he can leave a foundation more solid than Villa have had in a very long time.
Of course, this all depends on whether Houllier can continue. As I say, I’m not at all sure it’s a good idea for him and, by extension, Villa. If he can’t, then we really do have a very important choice to make.
But in the last two games, which would have perhaps meant nothing if we’d been safe and if they hadn’t been against good sides trying to salvage something, I saw heart, composure, some decent football, and players giving it their all. For all we endured this season, it was a very positive statement. It meant something doing it two weeks in a row. They weren’t flukes.
Papering over the cracks? I don’t think so, because McAllister has talked about players “who don’t have a role”. They’re not in denial. Makoun was not an “all’s well here,” signing. None of them were, not even Pires. Houllier wanted an elder statesman in the dressing room and on the training ground.
Playing to our ability? Getting there. Players showcasing themselves? Perhaps. Players playing for pride? Players playing for the manager? Maybe all of the above.
Regardless, it was a statement that, if we remove the health issues, makes a case for Houllier staying on purely in footballing terms.
The Author
