Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring

Prove it. Where's your proof that anyone has? Bent was given a chance under Lambert, was dropped and then got injured when he got back in the team. He came back was played and got injured again. I'm not sure what Lambert did wrong in that first season. Last season he was sent on loan to Fulham and didn't exactly impress under Jol, Meulensteen or Magath. How is that Lamberts fault?

Bent was given a chance by Lambert in his first season and also we didn't play defensively that season either. Bent did nothing at Fulham either, is that Lamberts fault? Bent looks unfit and out of shape and I suppose thats Lamberts fault as well.

Like calling any mitigation 'mythical', anyone who doesn't agree with you 'in denial' and saying anyone being positive are only doing it because they think it makes them look passionate? Thank you, you clearly don't agree that keeping the ball is important.....and if you do, why do cynics call it tippy tappy.... sadly I don't think, not keeping the ball, is associated with mitigation.I personally think it is a must and not even up for debate, sorry. I didn't mention keeping the ball, although keeping the ball is only profitable if you do something with it. West Brom under Mowbray kept the ball wonderfully but couldn't do much else other than keep it and were relegated. My post was obviously about the part highlighted in bold, which I just found ironic considering those quotes from you. perhaps i sounded a bit sure of myself....sorry. I didn't say anyone was championing keeping the ball and not doing anything with it. I just pointed out, that as West Brom showed, it's possible to have possession and be pretty ineffective. That shown by Mowbrays Albion is probably what would be described as tippy tappy & you don't have to be 'uneducated' to not want that. There's no problem with sounding sure of yourself but it shouldn't have to mean belittling and insulting those who have a different opinion. To be fair, it's not something that I've noticed in your posts before the last few days. Maybe I was just being a touch sensitive but just because some people may think that getting rid of Lambert isn't the answer to Villas problems, it doesn't mean they are happy with the situation or aren't suffering as much as those that want Lambert out.

Like calling any mitigation 'mythical', anyone who doesn't agree with you 'in denial' and saying anyone being positive are only doing it because they think it makes them look passionate? Thank you, you clearly don't agree that keeping the ball is important.....and if you do, why do cynics call it tippy tappy.... sadly I don't think, not keeping the ball, is associated with mitigation.I personally think it is a must and not even up for debate, sorry. I didn't mention keeping the ball, although keeping the ball is only profitable if you do something with it. West Brom under Mowbray kept the ball wonderfully but couldn't do much else other than keep it and were relegated. My post was obviously about the part highlighted in bold, which I just found ironic considering those quotes from you.

Like calling any mitigation 'mythical', anyone who doesn't agree with you 'in denial' and saying anyone being positive are only doing it because they think it makes them look passionate?

Yeah we lost yet again after being ahead with a lucky goal from a goal keeping error. We had 1 shot on target and 30% possession. An when we should be fighting for another goal we bring a off form striker on, drop everyone back to defend and invite pressure......... We didn't lose.

edit

Or if we draw, depending on the Hull vs spurs result.

Lambert hasn't been able to play the same starting eleven, in two consecutive games, since the Newcastle game. So it really isn't the 'Same first XI almost every week' and thats the major problem we've had this season.

That is not surprising since he has lost 46% of the games he has managed us for and won only 30%. When you can't coach the so called "better" players we have this year to create chances, score goals, defend properly or even pass the ball as well as a League 2 team, then you have no chance of winning 3 in a row. This man is clearly incapable at managing at this level and it still surprises me that people still think he can. This year we will come closer to relegation than before and might actually go down unless Lerner grows a pair and replaces this clown and quickly. a] Stoke (W), Newcastle (D), Hull (W), Liverpool (W) - "no chance" of winning 3 in a row? b] He clearly is capable of managing at this level. He's not been relegated. By all means want Lambert out, but don't just make things up Who's making stuff up, the stats don't lie. We have created the fewest chances (23 shots in 11 games), scored the fewest goals (5). We just beat a poor stoke team, were lucky to get nil nil vs a 10 man Newcastle, put a strong side out against Leyton Orient (League 1) at home and lost, won against a tired Hull team coming back from a European away match and then beat a poor Liverpool side (by far Lamberts best results in some time). I didn't want Lambert to start with but got behind him in his first season after the disaster that was Eck, was encouraged by our strong finish, was optimistic in his second season but sadly he disappointed big time and I wanted him out because of the poor results and awful football. However, after a promising transfer window bringing in better players (and probably because I thought we would be sold by Lerner and a new manager bought in), I said I would give him 10 games to see how he got on with Keane as coach. Guess what, nothing has changed. We have better players than at anytime under Lambert, the football is just as dire and the results are still the same. Einstein's definition if insanity is "doing the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result". Enough is enough, the time for change is now before it is too late. So every good result is because the other team were poor, or tired or we were lucky and every bad result is because Lamberts shit and the fact that we've had massive injury and sickness problems are ignored. Also there is no actual evidence at all that Einstein said that and it isn't relevant to a sporting situation anyway,

He certainly lived a full and varied life. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389275/Dave-Camerons-wicked-uncle-He-dreamed-PM--got-waylaid-claret-horses-flirty-petrol-pump-attendant.html Rest in Peace.

This has been posted a few times on here in the last couple of weeks and it really makes no sense at all. While it may have some validity in a scientific experiment, where every little detail is carefully controlled, it is ridiculous to use it as an argument in a sporting context where there are a multitude of variables in every game. It's not even as if we play with the same players every week. We haven't been able to field the same team for two games running since the third game of the season.

I used to think that way. But lets face it - his record is still superior to Lamberts - Promoted twice - Won the League Cup - Placed higher in his only season here than Lambert has yet to achieve It's true that Lambert has not been relegated while McLeish has - but boy! He's cutting it damn close. I no longer believe we wanted rid "because he was a terrible football manager".... ... simply due to the fact we tolerate a worse one now. We finished 16th under McLeish, with a more experienced squad than Lambert has had to work with. We've finished 15th twice with Lambert so the part in bold is totally incorrect. Lambert has also achieved promotions, back to back promotions with Norwich.

Spot on with this bit: "When you look at the individuals there, they are not producing anything near what they should be." They're not world beaters, but they should be turning in MUCH better performances. We strike me as a team that, if we swapped out the manager and had a little luck, would be night and day within weeks If we kept Lambert and had a bit of luck we'd be 'night and day' within weeks. I don't think it's a coincidence that the good start was with a settled side and Lambert has been unable to pick the same team for two games running since.

Those are examples of spurious excuses, how are the difficulties we've had spurious? Last season only Arsenal had a worse injury record than us. This season we've not been able to field a settled side since the Hull game. We've played last seasons top five in the last five games. Even for a fully fit squad thats going to be a challenging run of fixtures. Against Arsenal we had players out through illness, including losing a player on the morning of the match and losing another at half time. We lost a player on the morning of the Man city game, again to illness, which would indicate that the illness had possibly been a continuing problem since the Arsenal game. Two players, who would have started at Everton were out injured and another taken off in the first half through injury. So it's understandable that people make allowances for the injury problems we've had. The majority of posters, at the start of the season, thought we'd be in the bottom three after this run of games, yet despite the problems we've encountered we're mid table. Of course everything isn't perfect and there are issues that need looking at but disregarding the problems we've had is doing the players and manager a disservice.

They wouldn't have been as miserable because all those managers back in that time didn't have as bad home or cup records as this idiot we've now got in charge! Yes when Villa were relegated for the first time in their history I'm sure the fans weren't miserable at all because over eighty years later a manager was going to have a really bad home record.

Looking at RAWK they all seem convinced that Vlaar is out. I hope they're jumping to conclusions.

As long as we don't have horrendous luck with injuries again this season I think we'll finish higher than 14th this season.

No absolve him from blame for their appointment is very different to blaming him for not seeing the problem earlier which is what you were previously saying. Yes Lambert appointed them based upon their performance for him previously, that their performance/attitude changed can't really be leveled as a criticism of him in my view as quite clearly he would have appointed them had it been a problem before. Whilst I believe this to an extent (because I believe you) what I can't understand is *why* he wasn't allowed to do anything about it? I mean, just how big were their contracts? Either way, would he/we not have been better off putting them on gardening leave and using Given et al as he did towards the end of last season? Something doesn't add up. Maybe because knowing something was going on isn't the same as proving it? Thats the thing, we don't really have enough facts to know one way or the other. Possibly, why can't he say now though? There was a lot of blame being put his way last season, if it was down to these guys, why not say they were disruptive once they'd gone? Maybe because there's nothing to be gained by bringing it all back up again. Everyone has moved on and ad it wouldn't look good for Lambert to be blaming other people publically, regardless to how responsible they were, for the difficulties of the last two seasons.

Not necessarily. If the cups are won by teams who finish in the Champions League places then you can qualify in 7th. Us finishing 7th might be very unlikely but it's not impossible.

No absolve him from blame for their appointment is very different to blaming him for not seeing the problem earlier which is what you were previously saying. Yes Lambert appointed them based upon their performance for him previously, that their performance/attitude changed can't really be leveled as a criticism of him in my view as quite clearly he would have appointed them had it been a problem before. Whilst I believe this to an extent (because I believe you) what I can't understand is *why* he wasn't allowed to do anything about it? I mean, just how big were their contracts? Either way, would he/we not have been better off putting them on gardening leave and using Given et al as he did towards the end of last season? Something doesn't add up. Maybe because knowing something was going on isn't the same as proving it? Thats the thing, we don't really have enough facts to know one way or the other. Which is why it's ridiculous when people say that Lambert 'could/should have done something earlier' when we don't know what happened exactly, how long it was going on for or how long Lambert knew there was a problem before he acted. The early signs with Keane are positive. Maybe Lambert & Keane can be our Clough & Taylor ........ that would be something

It's certainly not impossible, other teams have come from nowhere and had an exceptional season and qualified. However while I don't see a problem in people dreaming of it, it's be insane to actually expect it. 8th - 10th for me. We need to have solid improvement this season.

For Vlarr to go, another club would have to agree with Villa and a Vlarr over a fee & personal terms and get all the paperwork sorted, Thats achievable. Going back in time and getting the forms faxed to the premier League before 11pm last night might be trickier Our deal with Cleverly was only approved because the majority of the paperwork, and most importantly the forms required by the Premier League, were already faxed over by the deadline.

He's on a season long loan. We can make the deal permanent but Everton can't sign him in January.

We've only had two premiership games. Surely it's not hard to name these clear chances we've been creating. We've had thirty shots at goal during the three games this season. Surely it's not hard to find that out.