DelboyVilla

Plus Keane seems to have far less publicity about how he visited Gary Ablett throughout his fight with cancer sometimes driving from Ipswich to the North West every night. Hey if it doesn't fit with the lunatic persona then it's ignored?

 

We have Westwood, Delph, Cleverley, Richardson and N'Zogbia who have shown they can all control and pass the ball but under the current manager we can't even manage to equal Hull at home in terms of keeping the ball and on Saturday looked like rabbits in the headlights.

 

Blimey, even Weimann and Gabby have a ggod enough touch and control.

 

People say it will get better with Benteke back but I remember last when we were dire with him in the team because we just kept on hoofing it up for him to knock on/down which didn't work as Benteke likes it to his feet, tigh or chest.

 

We need a new manager with tactics and someone who can motivate the team??

You do realise we actually won that game, right? Do you think Hull fans came away from the game celebrating because they had more possession?

 

But we sat back and let them come on to us and they could have taken something from the game? I know we won. I never disputed that but we should have killed the game by keeping the ball. We need to control games better at home when we have worked hard to build a lead IMO.

But like I said, nobody is saying THIS one idea is the solution to all our problems.

 

But lots of small ideas like this could at least get the revenue moving upwards.

What about setting up some stocks and putting Lambo in them? I'd pay a couple of quid every home game to throw something at him??? LOL!

We have Westwood, Delph, Cleverley, Richardson and N'Zogbia who have shown they can all control and pass the ball but under the current manager we can't even manage to equal Hull at home in terms of keeping the ball and on Saturday looked like rabbits in the headlights.

Blimey, even Weimann and Gabby have a ggod enough touch and control.

People say it will get better with Benteke back but I remember last when we were dire with him in the team because we just kept on hoofing it up for him to knock on/down which didn't work as Benteke likes it to his feet, tigh or chest.

We need a new manager with tactics and someone who can motivate the team??

 

 

 

 

I think Jack did OK and in no way had any influence on us winning or losing.

 

And that's kind of the point really!

 

But he had 20 minutes against one of the best teams in the land and hardly touched the ball!

 

Managerial Magic!

 

 

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!

 

He didn't say joyful, expansive, attacking football, he said good attacking football, but the point I think he was trying to make is that we need to improve in the possession and chance creating departments.

 

There are degrees in between the way we play now and the way Chelsea play. There are teams with arguably worse squad than ours that have more possession and create more chances every game than we do. We have a more solid back line this season than the last few years but they can't be expected to keep clean sheets week in week out and even if they did we'd still draw most games.

 

Having more attacking threat isn't a pipe dream that only the top clubs can afford to do, we just need the right players and, more importantly, the right manager and coaches that can implement that play-style. Lambert isn't that man for me, he's had enough chances now and it just doesn't look like it's going to happen under him.

 

 

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.

 

I couldn't give a shit what he did at Norwich when to be honest there was never any pressure on him to get results because when a small club like them get's to the top league they expect to go straight back down. His record here is dire and the performances on the pitch have been as poor as anything I can remember down VP.

Lambert has made it clear during his time here all the football decisions were his and to quote Hoolahan is silly as it was Norwich refusing to sell to Lambert because they hate him and it was not down to money. As usual Lambert had plan B a bit like his on field tactics.

He has obviously risen above his limited capabilities and I am sure he can't beleive how big an idiot Lerner is for keeping him employed for so long without spotting his major failings. Though a Yank with limited knowledge doesn't seem to spot much from thousands of miles away. He should make the most of this situation as when he does loose his job here he can go back to managing at his level, i.e. League 1!

 

 

Just because somebody doesn't have the same criticisms as you doesn't mean they're "burying their heads in the sand".

 

 

Well just the same as someone who critises Lambert is not 'pathetic, boring or a hater'? Plus people who critise cannot be a fan apparently?

 

And apparently you don't need the ball or have to shoot on target to win games? Yes we can all act like idiots and make stupid statements it's really easy!

 

Who has actually said this?

 

You missed the point I was making that certain people make stupid comments to justify the excuses.

 

 

 

 

 

He had 15 minutes against **** man city. Get a grip.

 

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.

 

I think Jack did OK and in no way had any influence on us winning or losing.

And that's kind of the point really!

But he had 20 minutes against one of the best teams in the land and hardly touched the ball!

Managerial Magic!

People are so desperate to be outraged and show how calm and measured they are.

 

Shame they want to show it by insulting others.

Wouldn't be VT if it was any other way??

Just because somebody doesn't have the same criticisms as you doesn't mean they're "burying their heads in the sand".

Well just the same as someone who critises Lambert is not 'pathetic, boring or a hater'? Plus people who critise cannot be a fan apparently?

And apparently you don't need the ball or have to shoot on target to win games? Yes we can all act like idiots and make stupid statements it's really easy!

 

 

 

He had 15 minutes against **** man city. Get a grip.

 

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?

 

 

As you may have guessed I do not want Lambert as our manager and having watched 2 seasons of mostly turgid rubbish be served up on the pitch the sooner he is gone the better IN MY OPINION! You have a different opinion and that does not make everyone who disagrees with it pathetic. Some of us have sticks and some of us have excuses. It's all about opinions though!

 

 

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.

 

Personally I always want us to win and I am as pleased as anyone when we do but if there is an area for concern or critism even when winning then raising it does not make people pathetic, boring or a hater. I don't hate Lambert but quite simply I think he is a poor manager and I think his record for the past 2 seasons is testament to that.

Some may choose to ignore weaknesses and bury their heads in the sand, that's their choice. I surpose they are the 'fan's?

 

He had 15 minutes against **** man city. Get a grip.

 

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?

Yeah but shots and possession apparently doesn't matter...

For everyone except Lambert's teams it does apparently? What about blocked shots? We usually have more than our fair share especially with Baker flying round the box. 

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.

As you may have guessed I do not want Lambert as our manager and having watched 2 seasons of mostly turgid rubbish be served up on the pitch the sooner he is gone the better IN MY OPINION! You have a different opinion and that does not make everyone who disagrees with it pathetic. Some of us have sticks and some of us have excuses. It's all about opinions though!

I agree with Mark's excellent post above, and also Trent's. 

 

HOWEVER

 

I'm not quite so defeatist as to believe that regular top 6 finishes and pushing to get in the top 4 is such a fantasy. The odds are against us, sure, more so than ever. But we were damn close before, and with the right combination of buying and selling at the right time, good management at board and team level, allied with a spot of luck, it's attainable. 

 

Look at Southampton as an example. A smaller club than ours, recently promoted, and I really believe they have an (outside) chance of finishing in the top 4. Probably it won't happen, but it's not inconceivable. United have myriad defensive problems, Liverpool look bang average, as do Everton and Spurs. It's hard, yes, but it can be done - and our potential is greater than that of the Saints. 

 

One thing we won't see without a rule change and massive investment is a title challenge. 

Southampton and Everton are working to a similar model to one another in that they are buying and developing players integrating them into the first team, performing well and then the players stock rises massively. When the players stock is at it's highest they sell some of those players to the rich high earners and replace them with cheaper alternatives with potential and further develop their youth players. They both also have an ethos around the club and appoint new managers that fit the club rather than having to change to a whole new team every time a new manager is appointed. Their style of play runs through the whole club so young players can fit straight into the first team.

Our main problem has been the owner has never kept the ethos of the team and therefore most of the managerial appointments have been poles apart in terms of style hence we ended up with a mish mash of players that was difficult to get playing well together. Lerner then made some poor decisions regarding the reinvestment and in particular the treatment of the so called 'high earners'. He also chose poorly when replacing players like Milner, Young and Downing.

It isn't just us that have changed, the game has changed and that the two things have overlapped means that we are further behind now than ever. Thanks to the finances involved and FFP it is unlikely we will ever be able to catch up.

 

The optimism and adventure of 2007 isn't likely to be recaptured sadly and that is as much about what is wrong with the game as it is what is wrong with our club.

 

Football is ruin, its a financial arms race in which some clubs are under a embargo, some of that is Lerner's fault some of it isn't.

 

It is though hard to see how we will ever do much more than make up the numbers and that as much as the poor home form is why people have stopped going to games. 

There's only Everton really from last season bucking that trend and showing how to break into the top 6 using a business model not funded on unsustainable owner spending? OK they haven't had a great start to this season but I don't think they will stay in 17th for long? 

N'Zog was replaced because he was gassing for air, he was knackered. The sub was wrong as he should have bought on Sanchez to tighten up the midfield.

That would have made far more sense as Bacuna is clearly not up to the job.

I don't see what people expect from him when he is brought on in situations where we are in a defensive mode and most of his touches are in our own half.

I thought he did OK against City considering he isn't known for his defensive play.

Why he was brought on I am not to sure though it was a big mistake in my eyes but not as big a mistake as Bacuna who is obviously not anywhere near good enough.

his decision making is somewhat bizarre sometimes. 

 

Quite a frustrating player to watch.  His head is always down.

He was our only creative player on the pitch on Saturday. Westwood, Delph and Cleverley were woeful the few times we had possession in the City half.

The Zog was head and shoulders above anyone in claret and blue and why he was replaced by Bacuna I'll never know as Bacuna looked like a pub team player and I am so glad we have Hutton at right back because everytime Kolarov got the ball he skinned Bacuna and left him on his arse!

 

 

 

 

While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture.

Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though.

I agree with this. I've watched Stoke a few times this season and they are capable of putting a few passes together without losing the ball.

So saying we are the new Stoke is rubbish.

I think the comparison was with the "old " Stoke. Mind you, they used to win at home more often than not, so that's bobbins, too

I know. Id actually be happy if we were the new old Stoke. Would normally mean a mid table finish.

 

 

Ah yes, the happy-go-lucky, possession-based attacking play of Tony Pulis. 

 

You obviously didn't see Palace last year? Very un-Stoke like. What he does do is play to his sides strengths and the oppositions weaknesses.

 

 

While I won't deny that we've been quite defensive in the opening games (I'm pretty sure injuries and illness have played a large part in that), I think perceptions have been skewed somewhat by our ridiculous start which has seen has face all of last season's top 4 in 7 games, not to mention Stoke away which is always a tough fixture.

 

Accusations of us being "the new Stoke" are just rubbish though.

I am sorry but the old "excuses" of injury and illness are just a weak one.

 

even if you accept the illness one that was in one match against Arsenal. In terms of injuries, who exactly, Vlaar and Benteke - is lambert so dependent on these two players that if they are not available then its a certain loss?

 

As said previously in this and many other threads there has been "wait unit Okore is back" , is he back now?

 

Also you mention our "ridiculous" start - again a weak argument. You have to play all of the teams twice so that has no relevance at all. What about the loss to Orient was that due to the fact that like previous years we have played some of the top teams? Was the turgid display against Newcastle down to this, was the past two years awful football down to this, was the defeats to lower league sides down to this? ....... etc etc

 

No we are not the new Stoke, that is because they at least had a plan that threatened the other teams goal. They also had a good chance of finishing mid table.

 

Now we may see a massive performance increase in terms of threat and attacking ability, and let's hope we do, as we play the next few matches, but please lets not throw out frankly weak arguments if they do not.

 

But you have your views and while I respect them, I am struggling to see their validity based on the excuses line

 

 

Much as I like Lambert and have been supportive of him up until now - I am coming round to the viewpoint above - I don't really see much evidence of change - if there is a change we have become better at scrambling out narrow victories - we haven't actually improved as a football side. Of course we could really turn it on v Everton, QPR and I would forced to eat my words - but I don't see us winning both games - and I don't see us winning either game convincingly - Love to be wrong of course.

 

The only creativity yetserday came from the Zog. Delph Westwood and Cleverley were all very poor going forward. Probably becasue they were so knackered from defending?

 

I don't actually think Randy is activley seeking a sale anymore - sure if someone rocks up with the goods he will sell - but I think its very much on the back burner. I think our future know is in the hands of Tom Fox - can he raise our revenue streams, and hire and fire the right managers ?

I'm convinced he still wants to sell but he just can't find a buyer. That's when the PR kicks in and we hear stories about him being "re-energised" etc. I don't buy it. We spent, what, £8m in the summer? If that's him getting the buzz for football back God help us if he ever gets fed up again.

 

Totally agree definately wants out! I would take no notice of the spin from Fox etc what's he going to say? 'Randy, oh yeah he really couldn't give a shit and wants away from the place as soon as some schmuck coughs up £200m'?

Perhaps because it is completely unrealistic to think we can play better football than a side that spent as much on one player as we have in three years.

No one has said that Trent!

What we can do is make it difficult for them not just roll over?

Otherwise we may as well just concede the games at Emirates, City of Manc and Stamford Bridge and not bother turning up? Save on the petrol and the confidence loss?