shaggy

I thought Up until they scored the first goal Man U were very poor again yesterday and then Norwich just rolled over very much in the way we still do when playing Man U.

Happy for Gigs to get the win though.

Yeah that's a fair point but surely you can see someone who can get the best out of what he has and someone who simply can't.

Palace were in a much worse position than us though dodgy and they were going down before Pulis arrived. He has turned the club around with the same or worse quality at his disposal while under Lambert we have just gotten worse.

Where I'm at fwiw:

I don't really care whether Lambert stays or goes. I can see that the players don't APPEAR all that motivated, and maybe some of that is down to the manager, although I believe it's because the players who aren't injured are low on confidence. Part of this is because we have so very little attacking threat since Benteke and Kozak's injuries. I don't know what Lambert's many critics expect him to do with what's left. Probably it comes down to whether you think the available players could perform better under a different manager. Personally I doubt it.

The results have been appalling, obviously. But what I don't get is how on the one hand everyone claims they understand the constraints the manager's been working under, and yet forget all this when we somehow fail to win games.

Having said all this it's pretty hard to see a manager turning the club around from this position, so regardless of whether Lambert is any good as a manager it might still be in the club's interests to let him go. I really feel for him though. He took on the poisoned chalice at the worst possible time, was given very little to spend, and what he did get he spent well (nobody who can understand the combining factors of injury, low wage budget and low quality of initial squad would deny that this is true).

Anyway, he's not my uncle or anything, so sack or don't sack. Whatever. But I don't believe Lambert has had a fair chance to show us what he can do. I think anyone who disagrees is overestimating how much effect the manager has in boosting squad confidence and implementing tactics. It's possible I could be wrong of course - that happened at least twice in the '90's.

Just sticking my colours on the mast. I still support Lambert. I don't think it's his fault the mess we're all in and I'd prefer to stick with him.

I agree Darren.

I don't think he's the root of all our problems. In fact I cannot imagine any manager doing any better in the circumstances.

We need changes at the club financially which will hopefully come this summer and I for one would like to see lambert given a season without financial constraints as I think sacking him now after him keeping us safe with a championship team two seasons in a row would be a bit harsh.

I know some people will point out that he signed lower league players etc but with the wage structure as it is that's about all he could do.

John Denver lovely voice and one of the good people. Will record it. Thanks for the heads up.

The problem is that if the mooted take over rumours are true if we are in the Premiership next season then the new owners will want their own manager in. At the moment we haven't secured that yet so the new owners can't be consulted yet in who they would want so I think we're stuck with him until the end of the season come what may.

18 defeats in a season. We've never had that before. Yet another record Lambert.

Yeah but records don't mean anything.

18 defeats in a season. We've never had that before. Yet another record Lambert.

The worrying thing for me is that there will still be those who will try to defend him.

"Would anyone give Ryan'Gigs a chance at our club when Manchester bring in their new manager". 

 

No shaggy. You will win nothing with a kid like Giggs as a manager. 

I would rather eat old rusted nails than have Lambert at the Villa for another year. Just no way.

Would anyone give Ryan'Gigs a chance at our club when Manchester bring in their new manager.

 

 

 

I'm getting confused: is the claim that Lambert is running his first team on £250K a week supposed to be evidence of what a good manager he is, or a reason why his results have been so poor?

A bit of both I guess, be interesting to compare the starting 11 wages with the other teams, I'd bet we'd be lower than our league placing has us.

So his ability to run a premier league first team on a shoestring is evidence of how good he is at getting poor results but not as poor as they might be.

I think I'm getting the hang of this argument now.

Put it this way, one caller last week after the game told the presenter we have a league 1 standard team, the presenter said but you're still in the premiership so is Lambert over achieving a working a miracle with these league 1 standard players?

 

Thats one way of looking at it but did Lambert buy those players with two relegation battles in mind or did he expect to advance the club further up the table.

For those who are against Moyes coming to the club due to Everton playing negative football under him with Manchester United's heritage of playing pass and move football why would Ferguson recommend Moyes to the board of Manchester United. Doesn't really make sense does it.

Ferguson also recommended McLeish to the board of Villa. I think it's fair to say Ferguson isn't exactly the best judge of manager.

For those who are against Moyes coming to the club due to Everton playing negative football under him with Manchester United's heritage of playing pass and move football why would Ferguson recommend Moyes to the board of Manchester United. Doesn't really make sense does it.

That's such bizarre logic. So Ferguson's opinion of Moyes (which in itself isn't directly related to playing style) now overrules what people saw with their own eyes?

What was the point of buying the player if he isn't going to get game time with our injuries.

Love this quote from Lambo - 

"I'd still want to stay even if there was no money. It's taken knocks for too long now. But I still want to be the manager."

 He is one of us.

For those who are against Moyes coming to the club due to Everton playing negative football under him with Manchester United's heritage of playing pass and move football why would Ferguson recommend Moyes to the board of Manchester United. Doesn't really make sense does it.

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

 

Don't take it to the higher level of Liverpool and Citeh, talk at our level. Which managers have deployed a similar budget in a vastly superior fashion?

In direct reply to your question when lambert arrived at out club and was given his first transfer budget did you expect two relegation battles.

Mantis.

His record in the transfer market has been appalling. Benteke and Vlaar have been great and Bertrand has been good but other than that that's it.

His signings have been the main contributing factor to those battles against relegation because they haven't produced enough consistent performances to keep us out of trouble.

No they haven't been appalling, that's your interpretation.  Lowton was nearly POTS last year, Sylla came in a did a good job etc etc

 

For the 1st 10 games, everyone thought Luna was wonderful.

 

Bennett against Chelsea was arugably MOTM - when he came he weighed about 4 stone, now he's bulked up and looks much better imo.

 

KEA has done much better this year, than last year. For many of these players it's still too early to judge them.  A lot of them have either came up a league or two or have come from a completely different country and have been thrown into this situation. 

 

The cost of any individual player is arbitury, it's their wages which accounts for more in our situation.. Not many existing professional footballers in the premier league would come to Villa on 10k a week, when most of them ar comfy on their bums for 20k.

 

The quality of player we've bought is largely down to wages, not one of fee's.

How many of the players you mention are still first team regulars?

Yes that's fine but it still doesn't exclude managerial choice in the transfer market which the other poster was trying to explain to you. He did have a choice you know and while that choice may have been narrowed by what he had to spend eighty per cent of his budget was spent unwisely which makes his overall performance in the transfer market poor.

If you take it to a higher level then has Rodgers spent more than the managers at Man City for instance and you would have to say no. So taking that into account Rodgers did better with his budget than say Peligrini because he used his budget better.

Lambert on a much lower level wasted his budget on under performing players and players not even considered first choice anymore and that's why we have struggled more than anyone imagined when lambert first came to the club.

Martinez would undoubtedly have done better. He had a proven track record of miracle working with Wigan, There's not much point in discussing this, however, since I doubt very much if he would have been happy to swap one job consisting of a season-long struggle to keep an under-funded club afloat in the premier league for another. Doubt whether Rodgers or Moyes would have been interested either.

Do you mean done better over all or done better in the transfer market?

 

I'd still bet if we sold Lambert's players tomorrow we would make a profit. Ok that's probably largely due to Benteke and Guzan being worth £35m or so together, plus Okore probably being a bargain. He's done pretty well compared to the disasters of our past. That shows some kind of success in the transfer market IMO.

 

I think we'd make at least double, probably triple. The ones we'd lose money on would be the cheap players, we'd make massive profits on players like Bacuna, Westwood, Benteke and Vlaar.

 

Mantis.

His record in the transfer market has been appalling. Benteke and Vlaar have been great and Bertrand has been good but other than that that's it.

His signings have been the main contributing factor to those battles against relegation because they haven't produced enough consistent performances to keep us out of trouble.

 

Appalling based on what exactly? Because if you take into account what he's had to spend on both wages and transfer fees then calling his record "appalling" is flat out wrong. Risso made a good point, although I'm not sure he intended it that way. You could say around 75% of the money Lambert's spent has been spent wisely (although IMO Lowton and Sylla were ok buys given that they were very good last season) - that's a really good record.

I'd still bet if we sold Lambert's players tomorrow we would make a profit. Ok that's probably largely due to Benteke and Guzan being worth £35m or so together, plus Okore probably being a bargain. He's done pretty well compared to the disasters of our past. That shows some kind of success in the transfer market IMO.

It's relative to performance though. You can't gage a player by what he cost. He must be judged on performances and those performances as a whole by the majority of Lambert's signings have been dreadful.