praisedmambo

This could have been said after the FA youth cup win. It didn't really lead to anything but selling players who turned out to be not good enough. Hopefully this lot will be different. Definite troll now. You said the same thing about four pages ago and everyone had a go at you then. Time to put the laptop away BJ10.

(so very happy not to know you in real life)

(what's wrong with you?) Sorry I'll go and get my space saved for the open top parade. I've said fair play, it's a good achievement at their level but for me it's not really worth getting to excited about. Until they perform at senior level it means nothing. You sir are a parody of yourself. Give the moaning a break for a bit. What drives you as a person to come on to every thread and post constant negative stuff. There is no need for it on this thread. The kids have done well.

(what's wrong with you?)

He was playing great yesterday and it is a shame about the mistake. Mistakes happen. Suarez is tricky, end of conversation.

Is there a rule about commenting on good things? There has to be a certain amount of goodness before it is possible to make a comment? Otherwise you have to throw in the dumbass 'shows how bad we've got.' Meh.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/paul-lambert-want-one-over-1790349? Aston Villa manager targets third win in a row as his side prepares to take on Liverpool at Villa Park this Easter weekend Reasons to be cheerful: Aston Villa boss Paul Lambert AFP Aston Villa's home win over QPR last time out was the first time in over two years the club had won successive Premier League games. A victory on Sunday at Villa Park against Liverpool will make it three in a row which would be undeniable progress. And of course it would be another significant step for Villa on the path to survival. It would also complete a double for boss Lambert over opposite number Brendan Rodgers this season after Villa's fine 3-1 win at Anfield in December. And Villa fans can rest assured the Scot will have his side fully fired up for Sunday's game. For while Lambert has never admitted it publicly, I believe it does rankle how many plaudits Rodgers got last summer ahead of him. The quotable, media-friendly Rodgers became something of a press darling last season after guiding promoted Swansea to 11th in the Premier League playing decent passing football. But the column inches and favourable press for Rodgers were arguably out of proportion to his achievements as he inherited a decent side in July 2010 , the foundations of which had been carefully laid previously by Roberto Martinez from 2007-2009. Lambert, in comparison, guided fellow promoted club Norwich to 12th in the top-flight, level on points with Swansea - and they did the double over them, playing some attractive stuff in the process. But more importantly in my view, Lambert took over a complete shambles in League One in August 2009 and totally overhauled the Canaries with successive promotions. No-one can convince me otherwise that Lambert's whole body of work at Norwich was not far more impressive than Rodgers' achievements in Wales. Yet last summer Rodgers was hotly tipped for Tottenham and Liverpool before getting the Anfield gig. And Lambert's name was barely mentioned for both jobs. Lambert, from what I heard, supposedly felt he had just as good credentials as Rodgers for those positions and clearly would have been up for either job as he was desperate to quit Norwich. In the end last summer, Lambert was delighted to take charge at Villa Park and genuinely appears to be enjoying his reign at the club despite the adversity of battling the drop. I am not saying there is any personal animosity between Lambert or Rodgers - I am not aware of that. But I do reckon achieving a double over Liverpool would be both sweet and vital for Lambert for several reasons. Villa go into the game in decent form as recent improved displays have done much to convince fans that Lambert's side are making real progress. I maintain the Scot is doing a decent job in very difficult circumstances as owner Randy Lerner continues to completely rebuild the first team squad on a new, cheaper, more self-sufficient, financial model. Keeping in-form striker Christian Benteke will be central to those long-term plans and from what I gather, Lambert is privately hopeful. The determining factor will actually not be how badly Villa or Lambert want him though. But whether Benteke himself is happy to stay or whether he will kick up a fuss, hand in a transfer request and demand to go as he did at Genk last summer. The signs are ominous as his rent-a-quote agent seems to be busy drumming up as much interest as possible! And it is virtually impossible to keep stars if they really want to go as Villa found out with Stewart Downing in August 2011. Publicly Lambert is very supportive of his players and is yet to criticise any of them in public - to the best of my knowledge. But fans maybe interested to know that privately he does dish it out in expletive-strewn rants. I gather young Joe Bennett, 22, copped it big-time at the interval against QPR following his slack pass for Rangers' opener. Apparently Lambert really tore into the left-back and let him know he would not be playing for the first team again if he repeated the mistake! It certainly worked the trick as both Villa and Bennett were remarkably improved in the second half and went on to win the game. And Lambert will not be short of dressing room material this weekend ahead of his return clash with Rodgers' Liverpool side. ......Nursey's proven to be on the ball when it comes to Villa. I see Lambert and our situation in the same light as him judging by this. It's interesting about the bollocking Bennett received.

I thought that when I saw him doing autographs after the Everton game. He looked shit scared. He comes across as shy to me. When he plays he looks like he is going to cry.

Lack of quality is an issue but as shown there are players who could have played in a wider position. It's cost us a lot this season IMO. People can say its hindsight but a lot of people mentioned how the lack of width was causing us issues early on in the season. We seemed to change at half time against Newcastle. Before that game we'd played 23 prem games and scored 19 goals. Since that game we've played 6 games and scored 11 goals. No surprise that its helped us look a lot better as an attacking team and has seen us pick up more points. Proof that all the excuses made for the manager this season are rubbish. Disregard coaching methods paying off (from the manager and his team), having injured players back in the team. Disregard all things in the name of a misguided obsession at being negative towards the manager. The picture is bigger than John Carew 10 is capable of comprehending. Oh just a coincidence that we looked a lot better as a team pretty much immediately the 2nd half against Newcastle kicked off. Yes keep making excuses and pull out the bigger picture line. You accuse me of disregarding things but you do exactly the same when you ignore my point about the formation. So hypocritical as well. Nice work. Lambert was the one who changed the formation. It's quite often managers make changes mid game, thankfully we seem to have one who makes decisions that make us more effective. I was never a fan of the wingbacks but I'm not letting it become an obsession for me, which I think is not the case for everyone. I've accepted that things don't always look pretty and I think it's a tougher job than you seem to realise. Now we are hopefully seeing the merit of Lambert's choices. If everything is ok this season and we survive we would have done so having moved a step further towards getting rid of the dead wood. We'll be in a healthier position financially and have the core of a young and promising squad which Lambert can add to in the summer. Finally the future can look bright again.

Lack of quality is an issue but as shown there are players who could have played in a wider position. It's cost us a lot this season IMO. People can say its hindsight but a lot of people mentioned how the lack of width was causing us issues early on in the season. We seemed to change at half time against Newcastle. Before that game we'd played 23 prem games and scored 19 goals. Since that game we've played 6 games and scored 11 goals. No surprise that its helped us look a lot better as an attacking team and has seen us pick up more points. Proof that all the excuses made for the manager this season are rubbish. Disregard coaching methods paying off (from the manager and his team), having injured players back in the team. Disregard all things in the name of a misguided obsession at being negative towards the manager. The picture is bigger than John Carew 10 is capable of comprehending.

Waa waa waa. Little stubborn baby who won't stop moaning.

BORING. (What though, those players no fan wanted at the club? The ones on massive wages etc. etc....£58 million losses a year, £100s of million in debts getting worse. For SHIT senior players not worth their wages. The only player frozen out that had any argument for towards staying at the club was Bent. Bent however does not deserve to be in this team.) Are you going to forever ignore sense and continue to be pigheaded and regressive? Boring. Anyway, why is it an assumption Dunne would have played when there are practically as many senior players rejuvenated under Lambert as the few, Hutton, Warnock, Ireland and Bent (and what a group that is!) who were frozen out. Players rejuvenated: Gabby, N'Zogbia, Guzan by the way. That's about all the senior players we have left.

I've been critical of Lambert all season but you have to admit the guy has serious balls. Any other young manager would be terrified of alienating senior players. Lambert seems to relish it. I find it quite alarming I find it quite refreshing actually seeing as getting rid of "underperforming overpaid players who couldnt give a shite" was a priority of a section of fans last summer. It could be argued he has only done what we wanted. I think what he's doing is the only way to get the right mentality at the club. He's setting an example thats very clear for everyone to see. It's pretty much, work your ass off or you're out. Also PussEKat, the only senior player he could have put on the bench that he didn't was Ireland, who has done nothing for Villa since he was here, making your statement a bit of an overreaction in the first place.

There is the argument that the wage bill was filled up with lots of MON signings who we couldn't shift. I think you're missing that out. Getting rid of those players was part of Houllier's plan too it seems, so some of what has happened can be put down to him having a heart attack. I think there's too much blame that goes round. Lerner made some bad decisions, McLeish alone still baffles me, and yet I am sympathetic towards him. He has put in a lot of money and the financial mess—the ridiculous wage bill came from MON 100%, as a gamble to get 4th. MON didn't have that in him. MON's legacy has definitely had a say in putting us where we are. Losing £58 million a year is no joke.

But you're ignoring the fact that we had to lower the wage bill. I'm sorry but that is absolutely key to everything. How was adding two new fullbacks in the summer while still having hutton and warnock training with the youth team helping to lower the wage bill? Everyone accepts he had to lower the wage bill. No one is arguing with you about that. What some don't accept is that he spent his limited budget wisely and that actually his decisions in terms of tactics and attitude towards to certain senior players have played a bit part in this awful season. You seem to excuse everything soley on the fact our wage bill needed to be lowered. It's ridiculous. As I said I'm sure the plan was to move on Hutton and Warnock. But you're ignoring the fact that we had to lower the wage bill. I'm sorry but that is absolutely key to everything. I don't know what else to say. Big John has destroyed your argument's one by one, I don't need to. Cuellar and Heskey were out of contract, fine, we let them go and lowered the wage bill. We bought Lowton, Bennett and Westwood when we could have been playing Hutton, Warnock and Ireland who we have paid up until January and are mostly STILL paying. That's not lowering the wage bill. You're giving Lambert credit for removing Cuellar and Heskey but he didn't sell them. He sold Collins and replaced him with Vlaar which is close to financially neutral. He has not lowered the wage bill at all. His job is to lower the wage bill, hence the decisions. You can't just give these players away though, someone has to come in and buy them. Big John has destroyed nothing - go back and read the start of my discussion with him and see how this has been taken away somewhat from my original point. I'm pretty sure, also, that if Hutton, Warnock, Ireland, Bent had the attitude of Petrov, then they might not have been treated in exactly the same way. The face is none of us know the truth behind all this and I've seen enough of those players to side with the manager. I think the Villa job was about the toughest one going and with regards to the squad I see in principle what he's trying to do. The job just isn't finished yet.

(and the fact that we were losing obscene amounts of money, which comes from...where?) You can't go sailing on a ship that's sinking. First you have to plug the financial holes, and then go.

But you're ignoring the fact that we had to lower the wage bill. I'm sorry but that is absolutely key to everything. Lambert established a bit of a reputation at Norwich of being a tactician man motivator too. I think at Norwich he was also there for 3 years, not 3/4 of a season, and so had a bit more time to shape the team.

Lambert did not have to sell Cuellar or Heskey. He also did not sell warnock or hutton in the summer so quite clearly he didn't have to sell them during that summer transfer period. So thats just utter rubbish. You're also assuming he had to sell collins. I'm sure he chose to sell collins to free up some wages for some of his new signings but that didn't exactly work out to plan did it? Haha i'm very selective and i ignore facts? Some nerve when you claim he hasn't made us worse. He didn't sell warnock or hutton in the summer. He chose to buy two new fullbacks when that money could have gone towards a strong cm player. You're making excuses for him. Why do i need to just look at the games we were spanked in? We've conceded a shit load of goals this season. Lambert chose fo build a new defence in the summer. Mainly thanks to his decisions made in the transfer window and his decisions when it comes to players like ireland, bent, hutton and warnock. Again you are just making excuses for him. Ridiculous tripe? Like actual stats and facts? Like actually looking at results, performances and the league table? Once again some nerve when you claim we haven't become worse. I have made my feelings towards the owner clear. Lambert came into a difficult situation, it doesn't excuse the poor decisions he has kept making. Explain how lack of experience and financial issues forced him to play a diamond formation with no width. Explain how a lack of experience and financial issues forced him to on a few occassions pick bowery in the squad over bent. Explain how a lack of experience and financial issues forced him to play 3-5-2 when it was quite clear it wasn't working. Poor poor excuses for an awful season which lambert has contributed to with his poor decisions. Yep, all my points still stand, especially about you not thinking. I think selling Hutton and Warnock was one of his aims in the summer by the way, just that nobody would take them on because of their high wages. You don't seem to grasp the bit about Villa's financial losses requiring not giving fresh contracts to the players who were on too high wages, and moving on other players (even if they never actually went): Cuellar, Collins, Hutton, Warnock, **** it Dunne as well. It's the whole big picture you're not seeing. Part of it is that this kind of transition, from the mess we were in to a place where we are financially sustainable is a very very difficult job and that improvement on a negative investment (less wages to replace players) and cost cutting agenda is nigh on IMPOSSIBLE. To have us where we are, and I think we will be safe (the late goals have especially ruined us just as injuries have ruined us over christmas) — we are worlds apart from where we were last season. If McLeish had stayed and had continued under such a negative investment, considering the way he spent money I bet we would have been relegated. The 352, I **** hated it and it did my head in. Managers do things though don't they. They work with the players and see different things. Often, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

£53 million losses. Adding to debts already over £100 million. All those players are on high wages, don't offer nearly enough, and have no future at the club. It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! If we lose £20 million on wages for these players that is just another £20 million that could have been invested in the team going to players totally unworthy of what they are on. We didn't sell Warnock. We haven't sold Hutton or Ireland though. That destroys your point. We gave Warnock away, presumably paid him off. We are paying Hutton to play elsewehere and paying Ireland not to play. It's not about a transfer fee, just not paying their wages. My point was because of the wages they have no future at the club (so I was thinking of Ireland and Bent then). Ireland is a bit pants though, isn't he. He's had many opportunities. As for Bent, I'm one that says he doesn't do enough for the team, so I wouldn't start him ahead of the other three anyway. It is all about the money.

£53 million losses. Adding to debts already over £100 million. All those players are on high wages, don't offer nearly enough, and have no future at the club. It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! If we lose £20 million on wages for these players that is just another £20 million that could have been invested in the team going to players totally unworthy of what they are on.

**** it, I'm adding Gary Gardner and Robbie Keane too. McLeish got abuse because he had a horrid track record (bar the league cup). Lambert will get time because he has a good track record. They are total opposites. I'd almost say this situation is more complicated than some people on here seem to care to realise, but I really don't think this is all that complicated if some people actually thought about what they were saying.

Big John there is no hope for you. Collins, Cuellar, Hutton, Warnock, Heskey (not so much him), and I count Petrov too in the list of players who McLeish had and who Lambert shipped out. All of them are experienced, all of them had to go (never ever forget we were losing £53 million a year, it needed sorting out otherwise Villa don't exist). As for all the rest of the things I said, you can ignore facts, you can pick and choose all you like but they won't go away. You are very selective and it, in my opinion, seriously impairs your judgement. We have also had the "Lambert bought three defenders and gave us the worse defence discussion". Notice those players I listed (the experienced ones on the massive wages, part of the £53 million problem) are four defenders and then add Petrov in to it as the one experienced midfielder we had, who screened our defence. Lambert is down one defender and the screening midfielder captain. Also, BigJohn, actually look at the games we were spanked in and see how, for example, in the 8-0 loss to Chelsea only Lowton was playing out of his "terrible defender signings" and we have been relying on the academy players, which brings me back to the point I made that he has taken a core of academy players, and that we have had to rely too much on them (and some very limited ones at that). You'll never see the light because you're too stubborn repeating the same tripe over and again. Look at the big picture, factor in the finances and the wages as these are absolutely 100% relevant.

Can this phrase be banned for the nonsense it is: "It shows how far our expectations have dropped." It's a stupid and ignores everything that actually happens in reality. Wake up, everything is relative, and we have been relatively shit for ages—for ages, bar a three year renaissance funded by Lerner. The club needs a good sensible sustainable plan now. It is the only way.

Also, not to mention that the awful wage situation is now about £35 million better off and we finally have a team full of players who can only really get better as opposed to worse. So the long term plan, the health of the club, is finally starting to look better. This is the base from where we can grow.

What evidence are you using to support this statement? Some thought it was impressive that we only lost 1-0 to city. Lambert's certainly very lucky that he took over from such an unpopular manager. We've been through this before. You think he's taken McLeish's team and made it worse, which is not the case. I actually appreciate that he's taken a core of academy players and supplemented them on a very limited budget. The players that left last year would have helped us massively this season, but (and this is key for me) all of them had to go—everyone with a brain knows that. You can't go on losing £53 million a year. Aston Villa would disappear if we kept that up. Don't underestimate the financial mess we've been in as it is the whole reason for the state we're in, and that is the cost of Lerner and MON's attempt at getting into the champions league. It is the cost of our failure. So Lambert has cut the wage bill, which HAD to happen, and that gave him a much less experienced squad than McLeish. The signings, considering how cheap they were and the wage situation have been very very good, with a high success rate (you can't win them all—fact). Our biggest problem has been too few signings and an over reliance on the lesser academy players in our small squad, especially when we had lots of injuries over our bleak period at Christmas. Sir, my evidence is my eyes and my brain, which is what you use to think things through.