Good post mate, like i say im neither all in or all out. I think his decisions were poor las year Spquad vs Squad and they need t obe questioned.
Im really interested in the Gana things and i think this is a philosophical question we need to ask ourselves, it expands on Catchers point in regard to money ball and value. There are two ways of looking at value.
1). The value of the deal in the context of a 29 year was to good to turn down.
I think that is subjective, you could look at secondary losses its brought - with a midfield would we have won more games, been higher up the table competed fro Europe?
2) The value of the player to the squad? Gana may have been 29, but he was worth a lot to us, as catcher was saying value isnt always about money - its what the value is to the team. So a 29 year old midfielder might be invaluable if it enables the team. The value to the team is high. Its like Grealish or Zaha, both arent worth 100 million, but probably worth 100 million to Villa and Palace.
Allan of course is the contradiction, if we sign him, last summer we were saying we couldn't turn down 30 million for a 29 years old Vs this summer we are saying a 29 year old specialist player in tha position is value. Its very contradictory.
It all comes down to catchers point about how judge and your concept of value.
Absolute correct, as I say, no right or wrong answer, hell sometimes both can be right and both can be wrong. Thing is, lets say we kept Gana last summer, would Carlo be desperate for the experience and quality that Allan will bring? The answer is probably not. So he's come in, looked at the squad and said 'We need X quality and traits and says I know just the man (Allan).
A
change in manager naturally can bring a change in strategy. Personally think we said to Gana give us one more year or the rest of the season before PSG, and we stuck to our word, like we did with Stones, Lukaku. The most underlying problem we are having, is the change of managers. Brands said himself he was reluctant to remove Silva (before the sacking) as he believes consistency is a key part of success and changing brings instability, which is right, it does. Every time we change manager, our 'philosophy' and strategy has to change to match, OR we keep the same philosophy and hire a manager to fit into that framework.
Koeman and Walsh made an absolute mess of things. So we then hire Allardyce to stabilise things, we give him £50m and sign two distinctly poor players, one of whom has had a good career but is on the back end of it and isn't improving). We then, as planned get rid of Allardyce.
We then appoint Brands and Silva, Brands has to clean up the mess made by Koeman, and then furtehr down the line we have Tosun who we cant shift and Walcott who is overpaid, not effective and probably couldn't shift if we wanted to due to a lack of right sided players. We have an average season under Silva, but plenty of promise being shown towards the back end of the season. Great, things looking up, Richy looks a mpalyer, Digne has had a great season and we shopuld go and build on it. Do we build on it effectively? Not really. We then, after 15/16 months of having ANOTHER regime in charge, change manager again, this time one that is worth the change. He comes in and clearly, half this squda aren't up to it so it's ANOTHER rebuilding job, because the mess that has been made from the previous regime.
We need consistency desperately ranging from who the manager is, how he wants to set up and who he wants in. Since we are clearly working the way of the manager setting the style and the DOF working off that, we NOW need to give Ancelotti four years, have Brands work with him and have that stability long-term. Players that come in suit what Ancelotti needs. If we do that, we will be much stronger in four years I have no doubt, but we have got to stop changing things every 18 months because it ends up with the squad we have of different players, suited to different things and different styles.
Gylfi for me is a good example? Is he an awful footballer? No. Is he suited to playing fully central in a 2? No. Put him like a second striker role and he'll do better. Walcott? He stays wide but CA likes his Wide players to roam inside. Not suited (He can stll be useful from the bench, but not primarily starting). Holgate and Keane, different defenders, Holgate will be fine palying higher up but Keane isn't suited to it. I dont believe Davies is suited to any style. Bernard? In theory he should be ideal for CA, cutting in from the left, finding space, but has disappointed. Iwobi? Suited to CA? I doubt it, he doesnt fancy him at all.
Sorry for the long post, but when you delve into just how much change has happened at the club in the past 5/6/7/8 years, it shows just how obvious that change isn't helping the club by doing it every 18 months. I may have disgressed from the original point
@Neiler
