Regular readers will not need reminding that I’m an ardent supporter of the Lerner/O’Neill management of our club. Aston Villa are barely recognizable from the club they were a little over 3 years ago. In fact, they’re almost polar opposite.

However, no one is beyond criticism and I must confess one trait of Martin O’Neill’s that frequently leaves me scratching my head is his apparent willingness to ask players to perform roles outside of their natural positions. Sure, every manager will find himself in a pinch from time to time and need to ask a player to fill in a void, that’s one of the values of having versatile players in your squad. MON takes it to a level that is, frankly, beyond my comprehension.

Case in point; back in August Villa were due to host Fulham and were effectively down to Carlos Cuellar as the only available first team centre back as it had become clear that Curtis Davies was unable to complete a game with his arm still properly attached to his body at the shoulder. In my preview I suggested that Ciaran Clark and Shane Lowry had impressed enough in pre-season to cause us little concern regardless of which one filled in. In fact, my concern, with my tongue slightly in cheek, was that MON might favour the natural left back Lowry over Clark, the centre back.

According to an article in The Times today I was thinking along the right lines, but was a million miles away from the square peg MON was thinking of hammering into the round hole at centre back. If articles without sources or quotes are to be believed, then it was Emile Heskey who MON had in mind to partner Cuellar at the back!!

In fairness, it wouldn’t be the first time we would have seen a striker play centre back for Villa; Dion Dublin converted to the position towards the end of his career. Then again, Dublin actually started his career at the back and later converted to a striker, so it wasn’t a stretch for him at all.

It’s up to you whether you give an uncited article in The Times more credence than you would a similar story in a red top, but for me it’s always the same without quotes or sources. Nevertheless, if there is some truth in this then I’m certainly glad that Heskey declined the gaffer’s request!! As it turned out, Ciaran Clark was given the nod and didn’t put a foot wrong all game. I keep track of player ratings and Clark scored 8.15, exactly the same as Man of the Match Gabby Agbonlahor.

The Times are trying to sell the angle that this is the underlying reason behind Heskey not getting picked regularly for Villa, but still playing for England. Personally, I could give two shits whether this is true or not – the way I’m feeling about Heskey right now, whatever keeps him off the team sheet is fine with me.

What concerns me most, if I allow myself to buy this story, is that MON apparently thought Emile Heskey would do a better job at the back than Ciaran Clark. It’s something so incredible to me that I wouldn’t give it more than a nanosecond of attention if it weren’t for MON’s previous form. Again, according to the article, the club are not denying that Heskey was asked to fill in at the back, but have reacted angrily to the suggestion that he has not been picked much since on the basis of some sort of grudge.

Looking forward, as we’ve established many times recently, we finally have a squad with depth in every position, but this story dents some of the optimism I draw from that. For instance, it’s great news that we have Luke Young and Freddy Bouma fast regaining fitness with a couple of reserve games under their belts recently. However, I shudder to think how they might be accommodated in the team.

The final question mark this leaves for me involves man management and motivation. These areas are generally considered MON’s strongest strings in his bow, but while I’ve never been a professional footballer, I remain to be convinced that continually playing players out of position helps much.

For instance, Nicky Shorey may not have set the world on fire when he first joined Villa, but he was doing a fairly adequate job for a new player settling in. His reaction at being yanked off and the players remaining on the pitch being jiggled around to accommodate someone else in midfield spoke volumes. It wasn’t long before he was dropped altogether and, from the outside at least, it appeared as much to do with a soured relationship between player and manager as it did performance.

Similarly, Reo-Coker won few fans from his performances on the right wing or right back, but his value to the side became more obvious to his detractors when employed in his natural holding role in the middle. Could being played out of position have contributed to his recent “contretemps” with the manager? Naturally, I’m speculating, but it’s far from impossible.

And finally, I can’t help wondering how much motivation the youngsters derive as they try to force their way into a first team where the manager is apparently more willing to play a striker who’s incapable of staying on his feet at centre half instead of the captain of the reserves.

I’ll add my usual disclaimer as a footnote: I’m not privy to what goes on behind closed doors at the club and I don’t have Martin O’Neill’s wealth of experience. It’s entirely possible that suitably equipped in these two areas it would all make sense to me. As it stands, from the outside looking in, I’m often as confused as anyone else.

However, returning to the opening paragraph, we are a club completely transformed from the one Martin O’Neill inherited and although there are bound to be setbacks along the way, we are apparently still heading in the right direction. Though I’d prefer to see the squad members genuinely competing with each other for their positions, I won’t criticise a manager who keeps moving us forward. Even if his methods sometimes leave me bemused!