shaggy

Or perhaps they think that there is more that should be taken into account that just league placement and points and that they aren't the only barometer. That they think other things should be taken into consideration. If you think McLeish is a better manager than Lambert, well that is your view I'm not going to try and change it but don't expect many people to agree with you. Those other things that you speak of have been taken into consideration by the fans and that's why he has been afforded more patience than previous managers here. The original defence was that he had brought young inexperienced players into the squad who needed a bedding in period and would come good in the second season. Well that bedding in period has past with no real consistent Improvement in performance or points level and that's why he is losing the support of the fans now. You remember the fans reaction at the Bolton game under McLeish and then the reaction at the Palace game under Lambert. If our last performance of this season against Spurs had been at home then the unrest at the Bolton game would have been replicated. I'd like you to quote where I have stated that McLeish is a better manager than Lambert? That's hasn't been my point at all. My point has been if you are going to say that Lambert is a very good manager then what are you basing that on because his record with us has been atrocious. So much so that it has parity with a manager continually referred to by our fans as one of the worst managers we have ever had and that is exactly my point.

Surely this McLeish v Lambert comparison has been done to death already? But no, I wouldn't have the same opinion if Mcleish were still in charge and there are various reasons why and none have anything to do with petty dislikes for Small Heath. To very quickly recap, McLeish lavished money in either wages or transfer fee's on the likes of £9.5m on N'Zogbia and the stupid wages of Given (that isn't hindsight, I said it was stupid at the time). He also inherited a far better squad than Lambert inherited, there is comparison between the relative strengths of the two. There is also little comparison between the way the two managed the team, McLeish signed short term, expensive dross like Hutton not with the clubs long term health in mind but due to a short term desire to cling to a job I'm sure he could hardly believe he landed having just been relegated, again. There is also little to be compared in their managerial records prior to arriving at B6, Lambert turned a club in terminal decline around leading them to successive promotions. McLeish well, he managed to finish 3rd in Scotland with Rangers and everyone knows the rest, a fluke cup win and finishing 9th with Bruce's team shouldn't fool anyone. Trying to draw comparisons between the results of Lambert and McLeish is in my view more than a little daft given the gulf in the difference of circumstances and is normally only done by those who wish to convince people they are right in their condemnation of Lambert. It really has very little to do with proper analysis or comparison. The biggest reason though for a difference for me is one manager set up with 6 defenders at home and Heskey in midfield against Spurs while the other has led us to wins at Anfield, Arsenal and at home to Chelsea. I've intentionally discounted the Man City game as that was a freak. We have twice gone up to Anfield under Lambert and played them off the park, that to me suggests whatever errors he has made and whatever shortcomings he might have he his a better manager than McLeish by some considerable distance. But that is just my view, I don't expect everyone to agree especially those who want to see the back of Lambert, that is after all your right as a supporter to hold whatever view you want. Just don't draw comparison between the results of McLeish and Lambert and expect me to take it seriously. Circumstances of every manager coming to a new club are going to be different simply because neither the manager or the circumstances can be cloned. However it's certainly not daft to try to analyse and compare the performance of both managers while at the same club especially when both managers were working under a limited budget. Under Lambert we finished with 41pts and 38pts with a final league placement of 15th. Under McLeish we finished with 38pts and a league placement of 16th. We could get into more stats but those are the most important stats and without doubt they show parity. You rightly mention that Lambert has achieved some excellent results while beating Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea but under McLeish we also beat a very good Chelsea team and drawing more games 17 to Lambert's 11. You also mention McLeish achieving a fluke cup win, yet under Lambert we weren't too far away doing the same thing losing against Bradford in the semi. You further state that McLeish finished ninth with Bruce's team yet didn't Lambert finish mid table with Norwich if we're going to take the debate outside of performances with Villa. Maybe those who still support and defend Lambert have lost sight of the most important factor of all in that league placement and points are the bottom line as a barometer of performance level. How many times have we heard the old cliche the table never lies and certainly if that is the case then your statement better manager than McLeish by some considerable distance has very little substance at all.

Well we haven't had to watch a Paul Lambert team play football for awhile so that helps. In terms of him staying, I'm not sure it's as noble as people make out. He would struggle to get another prem job and I seriously can't see him giving up a pay off to try and get money from the club through the courts. From his point of view to stay at the club right now is the smart move, not sure its worthy of praise. I made the point several pages back that due to current circumstances Lambert is a very lucky man indeed at the moment. In normal circumstances he would have been sacked at any other Premiership club. I also see that there is an increasing tide for him to stay which is based on the unknown than anything else. Most expect under the same circumstances that we will be relegated next season so how could the situation get worse if Lambert was sacked or did a runner? There is a possibility you know that if a new manager came in he might actually do a little better with the players available.

Or alternatively, there isn't much happening. But that is for another thread. Why do you always have to give us the bad news eh? One day your ITK will be positive. Btw I've devised a new ITK list. Not based on accuracy but a ranking system that takes in to account lots of factors. Handling (ridicule on VT by posters who hate ITK's) skills is one of those factors. That was more hunch than anything mate. I would though personally argue, all things considered, that telling people Lambert wasn't going despite claims otherwise was positive but I know some won't agree. I agree on Lambert. As I said on another thread, he has gone up in my estimation as he is the only one showing a bit of strength at a pretty rubbish time for Villa. Plus him leaving in our current state would be catastrophic for us as I can't imagine we would be able to attract anyone decent to the role and would almost definitely get relegated next season. I would agree with this if we had shown any improvement under Lambert or if the general results had been better. Since those results were similar to Mcleish would you still state the same if circumstances were the same under Mcleish?

These type of comments really do make my blood boil. Did Lerner choose the policy of buying younger inexperienced players? No he didn't because the Chief Executive has already stated that Lambert was given a budget and it was up to him how he spent that. He has brought in the region of 18 players the majority of whom being a miss rather than a hit. Did Lerner have any tactical input into choosing how we played over the past two seasons? I don't think Lambert would have stayed if that was the case so the answer to that question would also be no. Was it Lerner's idea to form the Bomb Squad thereby devaluing every player within it? Lerner wanted the outlay on wages to come down but did he advocate a no returns policy on those players? Certainly not. If reports are correct then Lerner has told Lambert to start using members of the Bomb Squad which Lambert has previously bombed out. Now we can blame Lerner for wanting out and not investing but should Lerner be blamed for not trying to use some of those players in the first place when budget constraints were tough? Lambert has got it so badly wrong in his two years here that he become nothing more than the puppet for the puppet master while awaiting his pay off and having to endure the ultimate embarrassment of his failed plan being ripped to pieces while also having one of those members of the bomb squad as a coach. Lerner must however take some of the blame for the choice of manager and in Lambert he has made the worst choice of all whose transfer policy, tactical awareness and choice of coaching staff has been the catalyst for this awful mess. Yes as he only gave him the money to go down that road. If you group the fees for tonev and the like together you still coudln't afford one player, and one player doesn't make a team. Yes he wanted them off the books. Lerner has done a 360. If he can't sell he won't provide extra funds, so Lambert has no option but to use the players left at the club. If you think any of them will make a difference anyway I find that baffling. Lambert deserves some blame yes, but not to the extreme you are suggesting. The damage was done at villa, and lambert never had a chance form the start. The same could be said about Pulis but he made a massive difference when he went to Palace.

These type of comments really do make my blood boil. Did Lerner choose the policy of buying younger inexperienced players? No he didn't because the Chief Executive has already stated that Lambert was given a budget and it was up to him how he spent that. He has brought in the region of 18 players the majority of whom being a miss rather than a hit. Did Lerner have any tactical input into choosing how we played over the past two seasons? I don't think Lambert would have stayed if that was the case so the answer to that question would also be no. Was it Lerner's idea to form the Bomb Squad thereby devaluing every player within it? Lerner wanted the outlay on wages to come down but did he advocate a no returns policy on those players? Certainly not. If reports are correct then Lerner has told Lambert to start using members of the Bomb Squad which Lambert has previously bombed out. Now we can blame Lerner for wanting out and not investing but should Lerner be blamed for not trying to use some of those players in the first place when budget constraints were tough? Lambert has got it so badly wrong in his two years here that he become nothing more than the puppet for the puppet master while awaiting his pay off and having to endure the ultimate embarrassment of his failed plan being ripped to pieces while also having one of those members of the bomb squad as a coach. Lerner must however take some of the blame for the choice of manager and in Lambert he has made the worst choice of all whose transfer policy, tactical awareness and choice of coaching staff has been the catalyst for this awful mess.

Well knock me down with a feather. Lambert finally having to utilise players already at the club. It's a pity he didn't do that in the first place instead of devaluing them to the extent that we couldn't sell. So not only do we have an about turn on the youth policy with Lambert targeting more experienced players, now he has to use those players not good enough by his own actions. Could it get more embarrassing for him even after having one of those bombed out players actually coaching the team? Probably not.

Look Richard when you make outlandish statements such as above what are they based on? Promotions from lower leagues and mid table with Norwich while then nearly relegating us twice. There is no other evidence to substantiate your claims while there is plenty to rebuff such remarks. Its not that I or anyone else wish to change your mind but previous remarks concerning Lambert and now this will only leave you open to more ridicule. There has been absolutely nothing to suggest while Lambert has been with us he is what you keep saying he is, a top manager.

Not sure what wages Weimann is on now but if it is the rumoured 30+grand then both he and Albrighton on similar wages would be too much for their abilities but I suppose if you want to sustain life and a squad in the Premiership then thats the wages you're gonna have to pay now. If Albrighton wants to go then with the deepest regret let him even though he was the only bright spark in an awful season.

Ashley Cole is also available but yes I know until new owners are found that is also unrealistic.

Part of the problem with our recent fullbacks has been managerial choice and there's no doubt about that but something else to consider is that in the modern game the footballing philosophy of the fullback has changed. He must be three players in one. Good defensively, pace to go forward and then having the ability to put a good cross in. Fullbacks who are able to do all three well cost wages and money we simply haven't had available. I wonder what type of wages Ashley Cole would be looking for? I'm sure way out of our current league and there's the problem.

We all wanted Lerner to sell up but with the amount of quality available on free or loan transfers this summer the sale of the club couldn't have come at a worse time with the included embargo on new contracts. If we don't get a quick sale then we could also lose Delph, Guzan, Vlaar and Benteke even with his injury. Those players will not want to hang around with no investment and another relegation battle in the offing if any of the top eight come calling.

It a good point you make about getting someone younger in and we all would prefer that but it's looking like limited funding again until a new owner is found so I'm not sure if the funding would be there to bring a younger play maker in. You would also have to factor in the time it would take for that younger play maker to become accustomed to the Premiership if it was a foreign acquisition? Alternatively with Hoolahan you know what you are getting with him, he is more creative than Westwood and will be a lot cheaper to sign than a younger playmaker. He is also much better than you are giving him credit for and currently would walk into our midfield making it better for little or no money. Holtby would be another alternative but his wages would be a concern.

This for me is where the problem lies in signing Lescott. The last thing he would want again is to sit on the bench with Okore hopefully raring to go at the start of next season and before signing for anyone Lescott would be looking for guaranteed playing time. I agree that Lescott would be part of a good partnership with Vlaar but you would have to leave Okore on the bench and I don't think he or Lescott will settle for that. The only way it would work is playing all three and I'm not sure that is the best way forward?

Hoolahan will probably be Lambert's first signing and it will be a good one. Exactly what we need.

Just to pick up on one of your points about Lambert's signings generating a profit shark. You are probably right on that but no matter what he paid for them he must be judged on the performances of the team. It is just a red herring to focus on anything else when we have stagnated.

Totally agree. Went to see it last night in normal 2D and came away a little disappointed.The major flaw of the film is it's two main characters which had less presence than our defence. So wooden and the young male lead needs some speech therapy as it was very hard to make out what he was saying. The mean look is no longer enough to carry a film. 6/10 is about right but it was better than the last Matthew Broderick effort.

He has a win % ratio worse than Paul Lambert with a much better team. Is this really the basis to sack our manager and replace him with Cowans? Come on, man... Nice little swerve there away from the original question I was replying to. The poster presented two examples of where an interim manager had relegated their teams and were employed by their clubs in the second half of the season when most of the damage had been already done. I replyed by using the new Swansea manager as an example where using an interim manager can prove to be much less than disastrous which was a valid comparison. Swansea were never really in relegation trouble (I assume there must've been a falling out with Laudrup) and Monk's record really isn't that good at all. He hasn't had to compete in the Europa League during his reign thus far either. Not sure this validates your point nor makes a good enough basis for Cowans being in charge. My point is valid due to Swansea being in the same circumstances as ourselves needing points to secure Premiership status and they achieved that with an interim manager who has done well enough to secure the job full time. That is as valid a comparison as you are going to get.

Please read my post again. I'm not advocating a new man to come in under the present circumstances but someone to hold the fort until until we get a new owner and I'm sure if asked as a matter of urgency Cowans would step up. Do you know for certain Cowans would step up? Fans who are close to Cowans has said he doesn't fancy being the boss. Have you seen the scenario that happened at Wolves and Nowich? Both employed coaches as the main man and both got relegated. No you are right. I don't know for sure. I'm basing my opinion on Cowans having claret and blue blood running through his veins and if called upon in an emergency just for an interim period then I would hope he would do it. How did the new Swansea manager do? Was it not in the second half of the season that Wolves and Norwich employed those new managers when the damage was already done? One would hope that Cowans would only only be in the managerial position during the summer and if needed pre season before a new owner could be found. Re TrentVilla. You could be right that it is a terrible idea to have Cowans as interim manager and I have no evidence to suggest otherwise but really my point is that I don't think Lambert walking or being sacked would be as damaging to the club as some might think. Swansea manager had better players didn't he? They were also struggling until they played us. And even if Swansea do have better players than us who is to blame for that and who was our manager when they played us. Also the better player argument was refuted by Pulis.

He has a win % ratio worse than Paul Lambert with a much better team. Is this really the basis to sack our manager and replace him with Cowans? Come on, man... Nice little swerve there away from the original question I was replying to. The poster presented two examples of where an interim manager had relegated their teams and were employed by their clubs in the second half of the season when most of the damage had been already done. I replyed by using the new Swansea manager as an example where using an interim manager can prove to be much less than disastrous which was a valid comparison.

The concern is valid imo. If Lambert goes and the takeover isn't 'imminent' then I for one would be very worried about next season. To suggest Cowans could step into the breach for a whole season is a huge gamble. If it were a team full of Villa fans then fine, but it isn't and the players (possibly Gabby/Alby aside) wont give a flying **** if he is a Villa legend or not - there is nothing to suggest he could/would do a better job than Lambert. The only way I could see it working would be if the club brought someone like Graham Taylor in to provide some guidance/support behind the scenes. like him or not PL has kept us up for the past two seasons and with a bit more luck and a couple of decent players, I'd wager he is more than capable of doing the same next year. Cowans would be a huge gamble and if it went wrong we would have nowhere to go (again assuming club still under RL control and seeking a buyer) if Lambert walks/gets sacked with no new owner on the immediate horizon it would be a very worrying time. also, just interested - what has not being in Europe got to do with new season prep? surely you have to plan/prepare for the PL?! I haven't suggested Cowans being our manager for the whole season. I have suggested him as an interim manager throughout the summer and pre-season and at the start of the season if needed which hopefully by that time new owners will be in place to bring their own man in. I do agree though that it would be much more of a gamble to have Cowans as manager for the whole season but that's not what I'm putting forward. If we had qualified for the Europa League then as you know players would have had to come back earlier.

Please read my post again. I'm not advocating a new man to come in under the present circumstances but someone to hold the fort until until we get a new owner and I'm sure if asked as a matter of urgency Cowans would step up. Do you know for certain Cowans would step up? Fans who are close to Cowans has said he doesn't fancy being the boss. Have you seen the scenario that happened at Wolves and Nowich? Both employed coaches as the main man and both got relegated. No you are right. I don't know for sure. I'm basing my opinion on Cowans having claret and blue blood running through his veins and if called upon in an emergency just for an interim period then I would hope he would do it. How did the new Swansea manager do? Was it not in the second half of the season that Wolves and Norwich employed those new managers when the damage was already done? One would hope that Cowans would only only be in the managerial position during the summer and if needed pre season before a new owner could be found. Re TrentVilla. You could be right that it is a terrible idea to have Cowans as interim manager and I have no evidence to suggest otherwise but really my point is that I don't think Lambert walking or being sacked would be as damaging to the club as some might think.

There's nothing to admit to in the first place. We don't know if there is a buyer(s) or not. It would be very hard to attract managers under the current conditions. Who would want to come and manage the club after what it's been through with little investment and uncertainty surrounding the ownership? That's more than a fair point but not the point you originally made which I questioned.

Please read my post again. I'm not advocating a new man to come in under the present circumstances but someone to hold the fort until until we get a new owner and I'm sure if asked as a matter of urgency Cowans would step up.

Exactly. I think some are letting their hatred of Lambert cloud their rationality a little bit. As you said, being stuck with no manager or no money is the absolute worst scenario. That's not a possible scenario though is it? Lerner isn't going to risk damaging his investment even more and there will always be a manager. Out of the actual realistic scenarios Lerner and Lambert being here at the start of the season is the worst one. You can't really rule anything out, including that. Disagree. The worst one would be Lambert leaving and us forced to get in a new manager yet again who in all likelihood might not even be here for long either if a takeover happened next summer. If Lambert walked we'd have massive problems convincing a new manager to sign on knowing that he could be sacked if a takeover happens in the next few weeks/months. Exactly. We'd end up with someone worse than Lambert and with a squad that had been signed by a different manager. We really can't afford yet another transition season on so little investment. We'd end up with someone worse than Lambert would we and how have you come to that conclusion. That is some assertion to make.