bobzy

Some debatable calls but, in their squads, more likely than not. Also shows that Lambert is good in the transfer market?

So.... that means he doesn't have to make do, doesn't have to try and improve the squad he already has and can't possibly try to implement a better style? I wonder what financial amount you think we need before he becomes responsible? No manager can plan for transfer budgets or wages as these things are outside their control - tight restrictions or not. You have to plan with what you have and using the former as an excuse means you are only ever treading water till something outside your control changes. Or, in other words, you aren't managing anything. The constant excuse of financial restrictions doesn't wash with me. I'm not expecting miracles - just signs of improvement, of an actual plan in place. I remain in serious doubt that Lambert can or will ever do different than what we currently see. Roberto Martinez is one of the most pragmatic managers in the Premier League. Pretty much started the "Swansea revolution" (to which they've stuck) and has Everton playing some great football - better even than when Moyes was there. He implemented that same style, slowly but surely, at Wigan Athletic and got some quite stunning results when playing, essentially, a 3-4-3 formation against Man Utd, Arsenal, etc. etc. However, ultimately, Wigan spent **** all and had a squad that was incredibly short on quality. They tried to play entertaining football, and most likely succeeded (even won a cup!) but, with not much investment and a poor squad, they came unstuck and got relegated. You can see financial restrictions as "an excuse" if you want, but it's a huge limitation in a Premier League where Hull City can fork out £16m on a strike force. Pretty football doesn't get you out of a mess - and Martinez is definitely one of the best for it.

This. I reckon Poland fans are fuming over their 33% possession stat after beating Germany as well. They should just play better football! That doesn't surprise me. I think it's obvious the more you control the ball the better you will do over a season. I think it's obvious that if you're a good team, you have better players than others and will therefore see more of the ball.

Of course everyone wants us to play better football. The main problem isn't a lack of possession, though - it's what we do with the ball once we have it. I'd rather see us break quickly and effectively than keep the ball for an extra 10% of the game; and I think most people would feel the same.

Good lord, really? So you think watching the ilk of Messi, Xavi and iniesta in their pomp is boring? Watching them run rings around Man united like they're not even there? Playing football like chess rather than than hit and hope is boring? I can lump a ball aimlessly 80 yards. I want to see footballers who can do things I can't. No wonder our national team has been so dreadful over the years. You need to watch the season review when we finished second under Big Ron and the tell us if you think that football was boring. Messi, Xavi and Iniesta is a collective of supremely talented footballers considered to be among the best of their generation. It's a crap example to give, quite frankly. Possession just doesn't mean much anyway. Our lack of shots is more of a concern. Ath Madrid won La Liga last season despite having the worst possession stats in the top half of the table. However, if you have someone like Diego Costa up top, you can get shots away. Chelsea beat Everton 6-3 away from home earlier in the season despite having less than 40% possession. However, they still played (and play) good, counter-attacking football. We really need to step away from this obsession. It's just so unimportant.

I don't get your point at all. He came on, you think he did OK and had no influence on winning or losing. But this = Lambert's fault and he's a terrible manager? What? Furthermore, surely you see this as beneficial to Grealish? I know you are struggling to understand so I will make it simpler for you. Generally when a manager makes a substitution he is using that player to have an influence on the game and try to change the outcome/result. Therefore when a substitution makes no difference then the manager has failed in what he tried to do. This is par for the course for Lambert as he is useless! It's not Jack's fault but IMO Sanchez would have made more sense if we were hanging in for the draw! Great logics dude. P.S: IF we were hanging on for a draw, and not seeking to nick a winner. Are you Paul Lambert?

I wasn't putting words in andym's mouth r.e: joyful, expansive football - just highlighting that that's a dream. We should definitely create more chances and that's probably our biggest failing right now. Possession really doesn't worry we; we have a fairly pacy attacking outlet so breaking/attacking quickly (and hopefully creating) is likely to mean a sacrifice on possession because we don't build up play slowly. Our biggest concern of the last 2 seasons (arguably?) has been having a leaky defence - it wouldn't be the greatest shock in the world if this is the area we've looked to improve on the most. An attacking play style is more a subjective 'want' than a necessity in matches. Plenty of teams build on a solid defence and counter attacking - perhaps we lack the quality to do this, perhaps we've missed having a main focal point up top with Benteke injured. Lambert has reportedly "gone in" for attacking midfielders recently (certainly with Hoolahan) but, likely due to stringent financial controls, we haven't purchased this kind of player. This may well be the reason we signed Joe Cole on a free? I don't accept that it's simply something we overlook or something that Lambert doesn't want. His Norwich side scored the most goals in League One when they won the league (89), the most goals in the Championship when they came 2nd (83) and the most goals of any side outside the top 6 in the Premier League (52) in their first season. But apparently he doesn't have the capability to achieve this? Bollocks, to be quite frank.

So we agree on the same thing; more shots does not necessarily = more goals in the same way that having a go does not necessarily = lesser deficit. Glad we managed to have so many posts to clarify this.

It's not implied there at all. It says the deficits could have been much, much higher - such is football sometimes. It was in response to your "look at the closer scorelines from giving it a go" post; just saying that in either case the deficits could be different - that's football. I've even been posting around the same time saying that possession/shots are meaningless statistics other than indicating which way a game is going, so can only assume you're deliberately being awkward?

I don't get your point at all. He came on, you think he did OK and had no influence on winning or losing. But this = Lambert's fault and he's a terrible manager? What? Furthermore, surely you see this as beneficial to Grealish?

Please quote where I said this, thanks.

But for the time being, with a weak squad, why does it need to be anything more than this? The football only needs to be able to be effective, not pretty. I agree that we should be more of an attacking unit (we simply won't win games otherwise) but I think it'll be better once Benteke is back - we've missed him a ridiculous amount. Jose Mourinho, with all the riches in the world, plays a defensive-based game. If you don't conceed many, you don't lose many. We're not Chelsea, we don't have the money of Chelsea, but the strategy is completely valid. Joyful, expansive, attacking football is a dream scenario. Grinding out or snatching wins/draws to enable us to stay in the league is the reality. Hopefully we can progress towards the former - for now, I'll take the latter.

Exactly, how can people possibly be calling a performance 'embarrassing' in that situation? Their reaction is more embarrassing to be honest. Heard it all now? If Grealish was 'embarassing' then I don't think there is a word in the Engish language to describe how bad Bacuna looked. In the circumstances Jack did OK against City and defended well. The fact he was brought on the pitch under the circumstances is the only embarassing performance evident here as I can't imagine what Lambert was thinking? Fans call for youngster to get game time. Lambert gives youngster game time. Lambert in the wrong. ****. Hell. Yeah inspired management bringing on our least experienced player in a game where the pressure was on to hold out for a draw, where we had minimal possession and were starting to be over run? You honestly beleive that was valuable game time for Grealish? FFS he was only put on the bench at the last minute when Gabby had his funny turn! Sanchez, Clark or even Joe Cloe would have been more sensible options in the circumstances but Lambert can do no wrong though! Edit: When has Lambert ever done what the fans ask anyway? He left by now if that was the case? I think he shifted Grealish to be a more attacking option/outlet ball and brought Bacuna on at the same time to be defensively solid. He possibly even dared to think that we could nick a win and didn't want to go too defensive or something - I'm not the manager though, so I don't know. I haven't praised Lambert for this either. I'm pretty neutral to the substitution to be honest. I find it fairly hard to criticise bringing on a young player to get some game time against some of the best players in the country in a game that was 0-0 with 20 minutes left. I certainly don't attribute that subsitution to us losing the game - it just... happened. But yes, it's definitely a case of Lambert doing no wrong rather than Lambert doing no right. Definitely. I'd rather see Grealish reserved purely for games against "lesser" opposition. Probably Lambert's fault then too.

Well firstly a shot isn't therefore a chance and since you clearly didn't watch the games in question, your insight into how they might've panned out is of no interest to me whatsoever. Going by your kind of reasoning though, we registered seven shots against Chelsea so we probably should've scored at least three eh? As for your last line, it's so petty that it doesn't warrant a response. I watched the Chelsea vs. Leicester game and thought Leicester gave a brilliant account of themselves (especially in the first half) and looked a threat on the break - although I don't really remember any chances of note aside from a one on one (I think?) that was missed by someone. The second half, Chelsea scored twice and could've had a couple more but, naturally, a team playing to close down and counter attack would get tired and conceed (does this sound familiar?). I didn't watch the Swansea game - only saw the highlights on MOTD so, granted, I can't comment on the exact details of how the game was in terms of them "giving it a go". And no, having seven shots obviously doesn't mean scoring three goals. Although, if you think it should, that means Chelsea would've scored 13 against Swansea. I think we're done here.

Exactly, how can people possibly be calling a performance 'embarrassing' in that situation? Their reaction is more embarrassing to be honest. Heard it all now? If Grealish was 'embarassing' then I don't think there is a word in the Engish language to describe how bad Bacuna looked. In the circumstances Jack did OK against City and defended well. The fact he was brought on the pitch under the circumstances is the only embarassing performance evident here as I can't imagine what Lambert was thinking? Fans call for youngster to get game time. Lambert gives youngster game time. Lambert in the wrong. ****. Hell.

I didn't say everyone who disagrees with me is pathetic. I said that people who would rather see Lambert suffer than have Aston Villa gain results is pathetic. It seems to be the way a few people are (no names); look at the negatives in victories and, obviously, lambast the defeats. Boring - be a fan rather than a hater.

Definitely - although "shots" is a better indicator of how much pressure you're under than "shots on target". Shots on target doesn't mean anything. 10 weak attempts from 30 yards that trickle into the goalkeeper's hands are 10 shots on target. However, 10 shots that go narrowly wide with the keeper stranded, or 10 shots that hit the woodwork means 0 shots on target. Which is a prospect you'd rather be facing? (Edit: I guess the latter as there's NO CHANCE of conceeding a goal; whereas a keeper could make a howler?) Overall shots shows how much pressure that team is putting the other one under - how much attacking the team is doing. Likewise, a lack of shows how little attacking the team is doing. I'd hazard a guess that our shots conceeded is generally low and our shots attempted likewise (in fact, the lowest). But yes, all of these things don't matter, they just indicate the pattern of a game.

Yep. Let's let fear hold us back. Nothing breeds confidence like sitting back and only conceding 3 per game, right? I find it strange that 3-0 defeats have suddenly become considered respectable scorelines. Ironically, teams who gave it a good go at Chelsea like Leicester and Swansea lost by lesser deficits. Chelsea had 30 shots against Swansea and 27 against Leicester compared to 17 against us. The lesser deficits could well have been much, much higher. Such is football sometimes. (Don't let this get in the way of your hatred though, please).

I agree with most of your post, so only highlighting this section. You say our youth team is "quite poor in terms of actual quality" but I think we produce a lot of Premier League players? This isn't to say that they're on a par with Europes brightest talents, but quite a few players make the grade in the Premier League. They could be squad players at clubs or first team at others, but they're still good enough to be in that role. The difference with Grealish compared to many others (Delfouneso, Bannan and Gardner I suppose) is that the hype doesn't seem to relate to "this kid will be awesome at Villa" but moreso "this kid will be awesome". It's the differentiation between our club and football as a whole. Whether or not he turns out to be that good obviously remains to be seen, but, for me, it's just different with him.

He's an absolute tosser - but he's having a good effect on Villa (for the time being). Let's hope that continues; **** buying his book though.

Quite surprised - didn't think he'd played much for them so far?

One of my work colleagues is a Notts County fan, goes to all their games etc. I wouldn't say he's a football Don or anything (he works with me; not as a scout) but he said Grealish was head and shoulders above everyone at the club and "will have a big future in the game". His highlights reel is fairly impressive and his touch and composure against Stoke - where he kept getting kicked and just laughed it off - was superb. He's impressed me with his few substitute appearances, but he's had very limited time on the pitch and has also had to play against Man City (people are knocking his brief performance in this game; well done VT ). Part of me wonders what happens with youth prospects on the whole. For example, Grealish is in the last year of his contract but hasn't been bought by anyone/snapped up as a kid by anyone etc. etc. - whereas we lost Danny Crowley to Arsenal for, essentially, **** all not so long ago. Does this mean Crowley is a "better" prospect than Grealish, or should we really consider how players develop? In any case, I think Grealish has the majority of Villa fans excited about what he could become. I don't think it's about the here and now but, longer term, he could be one hell of a player. A 5 year contract offer (if true) shows that our youth coaches, first team coaches and scouting staff all have faith that this kid is the real deal. Let's hope he signs and fills that potential - irrespective of whether it's for £10k/wk or £20k/wk.

Shots on target and possession are, essentially, meaningless statistics. You can argue that having more of both would likely increase the chances of winning a game but neither stat counts in a league table - they're just used in an argument to state Lambert is/Villa are crap. If you play a perfect counter attacking game and have 5 shots that hit the woodwork on the break, the stats would show low possession and 0 shots on target. Similarly, what do blocked shots count as? Do the stats take a guess at whether or not the ball would've hit the target? We lack an attacking edge at the moment (hey, that's a surprise given our injuries, eh? Wait - just another "excuse"...) but, even in a tepid display against Newcastle, managed to carve out a couple of decent opportunities that were missed. The Agbonlahor header is the one that sticks in my mind. We've since played 4 of the best teams in the league and, indeed, Europe. Yet people are wanting us to play an open, attacking game with higher possession? Just insane. Never going to happen and not going to happen for 75% of the other teams who play in the league we're in. I sense some fans care more about beating Lambert with sticks than the results of Aston Villa - which is pathetic.

They wern't in the Champions League when Klopp first took over and transformed them into the side they are today, on a budget. They were hovering just above mid-table so the fact they can attract players now, which isn't the point anyway, has little to do with the fact they are where they are today without spending big money. Far, far too simplistic. Dortmund are the second biggest team in German history and had won the title as recently as 2003(?) before Klopp took over in, what, I guess 2008/09? There's strict financial caps in German football meaning a club has to apply for a license to play in the league each season - something which is only accepted (from what I remember) if you have no debt. To get a team of Dortmund's standing (selling out an 80k stadium etc.) back to near the top of the league doesn't make "much" investment comparative to in England or Spain et al. Not to say that Klopp doesn't deserve credit because the guy has been amazing, but it's not really the same as our situation. We're not going to go from 15th to 2nd in the league because the Premier League simply doesn't allow it. Likewise, Dortmund lose their best players season after season to Bayern Munich - you just can't see the same thing happening here between, say, Chelsea and Man City. The good comparison is actually that Dortmund were run terribly and had to be bailed out by Bayern at one point to keep them afloat and in the Bundesliga. This financial mismanagement led to about a 7 year period of underachievement before Klopp came in and, with financial parity restored, was able to rebuild his team into a young, hungry model. We've had the same thing but for, what, 3 seasons - and Lambert has attempted to mimic that sort of approach. Nowhere near as "easy" in England when you're not at a top club, but very much a similar thing albeit over a shorter time period. Lambert isn't Jurgen Klopp and, likewise, Aston Villa are not Borussia Dortmund. I still think we've turned the corner though, and should be looking upwards from now on. I haven't once compared us or our situation with Dortmund. I was providing an example of a team achieving success due to the skill of their coach rather than their wallet. That's what I was trying to highlight - it's not like that. Their wallet is still large compared to the rest of the Bundesliga. Ours is not the same with regards to the Premier League.

I'd rather see us be more adventurous against the smaller teams to be honest. Lambert's methods (generally) see us garner decent results from sides we really shouldn't be competing with, but we often fall down where we shouldn't (Palace at home etc). Those are the games where we should be more couragious going forward; not so much against teams where we'd potentially get a mauling.