Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring

How was he stripped of his shirt number before the injury? He was injured on holiday, before the squad got back for training, and before the squad numbers were issued. So there's no reason to assume that he'd have been sold, other than rumours about a falling out with Lambert, but if the intention was/is to sell him why pretend he's injured. That makes no sense. It's all wild speculation with no evidence or facts to support it.

Because he is injured? You want an injured player to train, and to play ?

Dunne was injured and the rumours that he wasn't were rubbish. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2459753/Richard-Dunne-interview-QPR-defender-return-fitness-Harry-Redknapps-side.html As for CNZ he doesn't say that he isn't injured. Somebody had a go at him about why he's not a Bodymoor Heath helping the team and was given a rhetorical question as an answer. Obviously the answer is 'no', because he's injured. "Will they allow me to train with them", CNZ's own words. Lambert is a clown. That doesn't say he isn't injured. Do you think they'll let Benteke train, or Kozak .............. NO because they're injured. What a ridiculous conspiracy theory with no evidence in the slightest to back it up.

Dunne was injured and the rumours that he wasn't were rubbish. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2459753/Richard-Dunne-interview-QPR-defender-return-fitness-Harry-Redknapps-side.html As for CNZ he doesn't say that he isn't injured. Somebody had a go at him about why he's not a Bodymoor Heath helping the team and was given a rhetorical question as an answer. Obviously the answer is 'no', because he's injured.

NO. No, no, no, no. Having a GOOD manager in charge for a substantial amount of time is the ONLY way forward. In my opinion, Lambert isn't a good manager. According to you all he signs is "lower league dross". Yet this "lower league dross" has been mid table pretty much all season. If the players are so bad then surely Lambert must be a good manager to keep them mid table.

What a ridiculous thing to say with eight games left. Ninth is almost certainly beyond us but tenth place is still very much achievable

And we're still mid-table. Which is what the majority of posters wanted us to achieve this season after the relegation battles of the last three.

I'm not sure it's a delusion. There was a quote from a top agent, when we were finishing sixth under O'Neill, that the reason no clubs were attempting to sign Gabby was because it was well known that he wouldn't even consider leaving Villa.

You would surprise me if you came up with a realistic prediction. Well so far his prediction is looking very realistic. On course for a very good month if we continue playing as well as we have done.

We are top half We've got the makings of a decent side. Hopefully this summer will see purchases that'll help us unlock teams who sit back.

Loan players are definitely unable to play against their parent club. It goes back to a Newcastle player a few years ago who scored against the toon and celebrated enthusiastically. There was a worry about how he'd be treated when his loan finished and he went back. The changes were made the next season.

If that's what you're concerned about should you not be more unhappy with the manager, chairman and players? Because they have far far far more impact on what you're concerned about than the fans who have been going to villa park for years. It is possible to be annoyed at owner,manager,players etc and also be unhappy with the fans that get on the teams back as soon as anything goes wrong. Nobody is blaming everything on the fans but the unsupportive supporters do not help when moaning and abusing players during the game.

So what do we do as fans when we are 0-0 at half time and second half Lambert just decides to shut up shop and defend, Newcastle style. But it wasn't a case of Lambert just deciding to shut up shop was it. Westwood and Bertrand, who were both playing really well, went off injured.

Fully agree Rigo. Also saying Lambert hasn't played Luna or Bennett is strange to say the least. Bennett played regularly last season and Luna has played a great deal this season but is admittedly struggling. Bennett has been injured almost all of this season so Lambert hasn't been able to play him instead of Luna. Now Bertrand has been signed, who Lambert was reported to have tried to sign last season, and is keeping his place on merit.

So you think that it's a case of either playing really well or really badly and there's no middle ground?

Under Graham Taylor in 88/89 we avoided relegation in our last game of the season. The following season we finished runners up. Can't see us finishing runners up for a while can you? Plus Paul lambert is most definitely not SGT! No I can't, just pointing out that two seasons can be drastically different and the change isn't always gradual. This squad have shown that they can play some good football at times. They need to start producing the good stuff with more consistency, especially at home. With the right additions in the summer, if Lambert is backed properly after cutting the wage bill, then it's not impossible to see a marked improvement next season. Progress is rarely a straight line. There were bound to be ups and downs both in regards the team and individual players. But just because players have had a difficult second season doesn't mean that they won't improve from this. Obviously there's no guarantees that they will, it just depends on how patient you are I suppose as to whether you're willing to give them and lambert time. Personally I think he's done an ok job in very difficult circumstances but with the wages now under control I would expect next season to be the make or break.

Under Graham Taylor in 88/89 we avoided relegation in our last game of the season. The following season we finished runners up.

Where have i said anything 'defeatist' I'm simply pointing out that your comparison with the job facing Lambert and the situation faced by Saunders and Little is ridiculous. Where have I mentioned Porto or Mourinhio? What a 'good' strawman argument that is. I am far from defeatist, which is rather an offensive term in my mind. I want and EXPECT Villa to be challenging at the top end of the table. I don't expect it to happen 18 months into a managers reign, when he's had to massively cut the wage bill and rebuild the squad. With the high earners now all but gone from the club I expect to see Lambert able to spend more per player in the summer and bring in much needed reliability in key areas and for Villa to have a much improved season next season, especially at home, than this season. Patience is not the same as defeatism. To say Peter Withe was a modest purchase is wrong, plain and simple. He wasn't the biggest transfer fee of the time, granted, but it was still a decent amount. What the hell has Martinez got to do with anything?

I have not tracked the players life.....are your saying you wouldn't have him in our team? its like i said in my earlier post you make examples in a few seconds and hope folk get your general point, you make examples to help your, point not prove it.....we buy too many shit players was my point....but usually when you say that, some come back with well we don't spend enough money, when bent @ 20 odd mill and zog at 10 mill or curtis davies or one of your own better examples with a big spend have not done it for us. we have just had too many of them in recent years..... we all know it happens, it has happened too much to us IMO Lambert hasn't been given the chance to spend big. And before anyone says he's wasted money on players, when you're spending a Max of £3 mil on a player, you're going to get more misses than hits. Saunders didn't,Taylor didn't, Little didn't.....in monetary comparison..... You can't compare how football is now with back then. There wasn't 5 teams spending £100 mil a season then. I nearly wrote that response for you it was so predictable. Its a stock answer to everything.....but in reality,everything is relative. Liverpool was buying all the best players in Saunders day and Bobby Robson was attracting most of the best talent at Ipswich,yes back water Ipswich, Manchester Utd was exactly skint either....but of course players wasn't interested in money then, its a new thing. the bloody amounts are but the principle is as old as time.....players have always been interested in money...who isn't. sure there is a different landscape, but there has always been problems of one thing or another for all managers....They have to rise above it, the good ones do and the not so good ones blame lack of money.....and some fans buy it. This money business tickles me, its as if its all new, do you think in 20 years time they will be saying, there wasn't a lust for money back in 2014 was there......not like now, though ay in 2034 The playing field was a lot more even in the eighties and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Thats why Ipswich could challenge, why Forest could come up and challenge straight away and win titles and European Cups. Are you seriously trying to suggest that a team could get promotion now and challenge for the title, without having a Man City like backer? Comparing Lambert to Saunders is pointless. Saunders took over a team in Div 2, carrying on the rebuilding work started by Vic Crowe. He had enough backing to break the clubs transfer record when he signed Withe. Lambert has had to rebuild the squad, while remaining in the top flight. With a very modest amount 'per' player to spend. Whether you consider his purchases as good or bad is one thing but to suggest that his position is 'relative' to Saunders or Little is quite simply ridiculous. It's any excuse, it seems to me, slate Lambert without giving him any acknowledgement for the difficulties he's faced.

Detail changes in time , the principles remain much the same. Aston villa was great team in the 1930's because we attracted good managers who attracted the better players.....what has changed....the relevant stuff is still the same......they wasn't t eating pukka pies in the 30's though, but rattles were all the rage. The first Aston Villa manager was Jimmy McMullan appointed in the 1934 and he saw us relegated for the first time in our history in the 35/36 season. Hardly a great manager or a a great Villa team.

It doesn't really take a idiot to understand our results though. Our results are that of a mid table team, which is where we are currently. Sometimes we play well, sometimes bad and mostly a mixture of the two. A typical mid table team.

We played an attacking game against Liverpool and did great, until Gabby went off. We played an attacking game against West Brom and did great but conceded three goals. An Everton side in 5th place, at home and looking to bounce back after a derby defeat is a different prospect to West Brom at home. We had to be tighter defensively than the Albion game. It's easy to say this formation, or that formation, would have worked because nobody here will have the opportunity to put it to the test.

would be first back to back wins of the season too We beat Norwich away and Man City at home back to back, in September.

Bloody hell we're selling the lot of 'em

It actually means a lot in the context of the post I was replying to. What constitutes a 'start' then. How many games are you basing that stat on and why?