Speculation Transfer Speculation (Winter 2014)

[il_serpente]

 

Ignoring the usual petty sarcasm I've asked you on four occasions now to produce a simple stat of Lambert's match record during his tenure with us and on every occasion you have refused.

I've asked you to do this because previously you seem very willing to pull a graph out of your back pocket to try and prove that Lambert is doing a good job. One would assume that one of the most telling factors whether Lambert is doing a good job or not is our overall match record under him, yet as I say, you refuse to show this.

 

But indignantly demanding that someone you're disagreeing with post the particular stat that supports your own position isn't petty?   If you've got an argument to make, make it yourself.

 

The basic disagreement between the "Lambert apologists" and the "Negative Nellies" mostly boils down to their interpretation of what rebuilding entails and what's the best approach in the long run.  It's clear Lerner, Lambert and Faulkner all agreed it's best to start from scratch with young (mostly), hungry, passionate players on similar (mostly) wages to bond and get the high-earners out the door.  This approach required spreading the transfer kitty and salary funds among more players, with the obvious sacrifice in quality and greater risk of signing flops.   It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.  But if the plan works, the club is in a good position financially and can start rewarding the players who did well with better contracts and replacing those who didn't with better quality at higher wages without blowing the wages out of the water again.  If you accept this approach, then the club's record since Lambert took over isn't necessarily the most important measure of success at this point in the project, as long as the club stays up.  At the moment, you could argue that Lambert has been successful, if only by a margin, against this measure.  If the rest of the plan plays out (relegation is avoided, money from clearing out dead wood is made available for better players in the summer), next season is the real test of both Lamber and Lerner.   Football style and results need to be significantly better and showing signs of continuous improvement.

 

If you don't agree that a total clearout was necessary, as a number of you don't, then of course it's hard to view Lambert as being successful.   As you've argued, the transfer funds could have gone to fewer players of higher quality and results likely would have been better to date.  The question is whether the club would be better posed for a resurgence after this season under this scenario.  You clearly believe so.   Team togetherness and the ability to build up from a good foundation, both football-wise and financially, would probably not be as good but maybe results would be similar without having had to go through 2 seasons of relagation risk and unattactive football.  We may never know.

 

Lambert was clearly brought on board to do the job in a particular way.  Slate him for choosing to go along with the plan if you want, or slate Lerner for hiring a manager to take this approach.   But given the job he was asked to do, I don't think Lambert's been too bad.

[lexicon]

Summed up brilliantly, serpente. 

[Eric]

Ignoring the usual petty sarcasm I've asked you on four occasions now to produce a simple stat of Lambert's match record during his tenure with us and on every occasion you have refused.

I've asked you to do this because previously you seem very willing to pull a graph out of your back pocket to try and prove that Lambert is doing a good job. One would assume that one of the most telling factors whether Lambert is doing a good job or not is our overall match record under him, yet as I say, you refuse to show this.

 

But indignantly demanding that someone you're disagreeing with post the particular stat that supports your own position isn't petty?   If you've got an argument to make, make it yourself.

 

The basic disagreement between the "Lambert apologists" and the "Negative Nellies" mostly boils down to their interpretation of what rebuilding entails and what's the best approach in the long run.  It's clear Lerner, Lambert and Faulkner all agreed it's best to start from scratch with young (mostly), hungry, passionate players on similar (mostly) wages to bond and get the high-earners out the door.  This approach required spreading the transfer kitty and salary funds among more players, with the obvious sacrifice in quality and greater risk of signing flops.   It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.  But if the plan works, the club is in a good position financially and can start rewarding the players who did well with better contracts and replacing those who didn't with better quality at higher wages without blowing the wages out of the water again.  If you accept this approach, then the club's record since Lambert took over isn't necessarily the most important measure of success at this point in the project, as long as the club stays up.  At the moment, you could argue that Lambert has been successful, if only by a margin, against this measure.  If the rest of the plan plays out (relegation is avoided, money from clearing out dead wood is made available for better players in the summer), next season is the real test of both Lamber and Lerner.   Football style and results need to be significantly better and showing signs of continuous improvement.

 

If you don't agree that a total clearout was necessary, as a number of you don't, then of course it's hard to view Lambert as being successful.   As you've argued, the transfer funds could have gone to fewer players of higher quality and results likely would have been better to date.  The question is whether the club would be better posed for a resurgence after this season under this scenario.  You clearly believe so.   Team togetherness and the ability to build up from a good foundation, both football-wise and financially, would probably not be as good but maybe results would be similar without having had to go through 2 seasons of relagation risk and unattactive football.  We may never know.

 

Lambert was clearly brought on board to do the job in a particular way.  Slate him for choosing to go along with the plan if you want, or slate Lerner for hiring a manager to take this approach.   But given the job he was asked to do, I don't think Lambert's been too bad.

Spot on!

[StanBalaban]

il Serpente

 

[VillaCas]

Ignoring the usual petty sarcasm I've asked you on four occasions now to produce a simple stat of Lambert's match record during his tenure with us and on every occasion you have refused.

I've asked you to do this because previously you seem very willing to pull a graph out of your back pocket to try and prove that Lambert is doing a good job. One would assume that one of the most telling factors whether Lambert is doing a good job or not is our overall match record under him, yet as I say, you refuse to show this.

Secondly and more on topic you say that you don't think Lambert has an extensive scouting network yet Lambert has connections in Germany and has signed players from other leagues in Europe so I'm not sure that could excuse his ratio of poor signings.

You mention building the foundations of a decent squad. Frankly after signing 16 players currently there has been very little improvement but to try and end on a more positive note the signing of Bertrand on loan is a step in the right direction and if we can get Hoolahan who I mentioned last season then he too will improve us.

Holt is a strange signing but I desperately hope a master stroke and I'll tell you why I have changed my stance on this. I was speaking with two Man U supporters today and when I mentioned the signing of Holt they burst out laughing. I was trying to explain why we had signed him but was duly ridiculed for that attempt. So it would be rather nice if Mr Holt doesn't do what many of us expect and score enough to allow me and other Villa fans to actually say that concerning this particular signing Mr Lambert knew exactly what he was doing.

Last season our average league position was 16.8, this season it's just over 11 so far.......that seems like reasonable progress

Secondly, I would imagine that our scouting network, like the rest of the finances is cut-price and so is not regularly turning up worldbeaters

Thirdly, players that cost 80m have gone, replaced with players that cost half that on less than half the wages. Despite that we clearly have a better squad now than then

I too hope we get Hoolahan and like you hope that Holt is a success. It will give me a nice warm feeling to know that for once we are both wishing for the same outcome

[Big_John_10]

Once the wages to revenue ratio is back down to that of other financiallyhealthy clubs I will be just as upset as you if cost-cutting continues at a similar pace or Lerner tries to recoup all his investment too quickly at the expense of the quality of the squad.

Well this was a lie. Because you're still defending the low spending and cost cutting.

[myko]

This is slightly off topic but i've never understood why people argue on here… We all support the same team week in week out. Have an opinion not an ego. No one cares about your petty arguments. At least make it constructive. Stressful times i get it but you aint helping yourself!

Anyways, what would people think to Nacer Chadli? Spurs have an overcrowded midfield, he's belgian and hardly played this season. Did pretty well at FC Twente before spurs signed him.

Wouldn't mind Chadli, rumours were we were looking at him before Spurs plowed us out the way, sadly I imagine his wages would be much too high for us though.

[nazvfc]

 

 

Ignoring the usual petty sarcasm I've asked you on four occasions now to produce a simple stat of Lambert's match record during his tenure with us and on every occasion you have refused.

I've asked you to do this because previously you seem very willing to pull a graph out of your back pocket to try and prove that Lambert is doing a good job. One would assume that one of the most telling factors whether Lambert is doing a good job or not is our overall match record under him, yet as I say, you refuse to show this.

 

But indignantly demanding that someone you're disagreeing with post the particular stat that supports your own position isn't petty?   If you've got an argument to make, make it yourself.

 

The basic disagreement between the "Lambert apologists" and the "Negative Nellies" mostly boils down to their interpretation of what rebuilding entails and what's the best approach in the long run.  It's clear Lerner, Lambert and Faulkner all agreed it's best to start from scratch with young (mostly), hungry, passionate players on similar (mostly) wages to bond and get the high-earners out the door.  This approach required spreading the transfer kitty and salary funds among more players, with the obvious sacrifice in quality and greater risk of signing flops.   It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.  But if the plan works, the club is in a good position financially and can start rewarding the players who did well with better contracts and replacing those who didn't with better quality at higher wages without blowing the wages out of the water again.  If you accept this approach, then the club's record since Lambert took over isn't necessarily the most important measure of success at this point in the project, as long as the club stays up.  At the moment, you could argue that Lambert has been successful, if only by a margin, against this measure.  If the rest of the plan plays out (relegation is avoided, money from clearing out dead wood is made available for better players in the summer), next season is the real test of both Lamber and Lerner.   Football style and results need to be significantly better and showing signs of continuous improvement.

 

If you don't agree that a total clearout was necessary, as a number of you don't, then of course it's hard to view Lambert as being successful.   As you've argued, the transfer funds could have gone to fewer players of higher quality and results likely would have been better to date.  The question is whether the club would be better posed for a resurgence after this season under this scenario.  You clearly believe so.   Team togetherness and the ability to build up from a good foundation, both football-wise and financially, would probably not be as good but maybe results would be similar without having had to go through 2 seasons of relagation risk and unattactive football.  We may never know.

 

Lambert was clearly brought on board to do the job in a particular way.  Slate him for choosing to go along with the plan if you want, or slate Lerner for hiring a manager to take this approach.   But given the job he was asked to do, I don't think Lambert's been too bad.

 

I don't post much being of the 'old gits' who've supported Villa UNCONDITIONALLY for 53 years,but THIS is the best post I have read in many a year. Good one il_serpente, 

 

But then I'm sure this will be denigrated by some.

[Big_John_10]

It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.

I find this bit very interesting. If you thought we'd be in a relegation battle last year you were laughed at and mocked. Now its obvious we were risking it for a couple of years.

Don't remember many posts last year saying another relegation battle was expected this year.

It just seems no matter what happens a certain group will just change their expectations in order to support the manager.

[sonic_bouma]

This is slightly off topic but i've never understood why people argue on here… We all support the same team week in week out. Have an opinion not an ego. No one cares about your petty arguments. At least make it constructive. Stressful times i get it but you aint helping yourself!

Anyways, what would people think to Nacer Chadli? Spurs have an overcrowded midfield, he's belgian and hardly played this season. Did pretty well at FC Twente before spurs signed him.

Wouldn't mind Chadli, rumours were we were looking at him before Spurs plowed us out the way, sadly I imagine his wages would be much too high for us though.

I think it would be a great deal for us if we got him on loan

Surely they wouldn't make us pay all his wages?

Even so Spurs don't dish out ridiculous wages to everybody and he was one of the lesser signings of the summer at 7m.

I reckon he's on about 35,000. Surely we could afford this for 6 months if he helps us get 10th place and more money.

[Spoony]

 

 

Ignoring the usual petty sarcasm I've asked you on four occasions now to produce a simple stat of Lambert's match record during his tenure with us and on every occasion you have refused.

I've asked you to do this because previously you seem very willing to pull a graph out of your back pocket to try and prove that Lambert is doing a good job. One would assume that one of the most telling factors whether Lambert is doing a good job or not is our overall match record under him, yet as I say, you refuse to show this.

 

But indignantly demanding that someone you're disagreeing with post the particular stat that supports your own position isn't petty?   If you've got an argument to make, make it yourself.

 

The basic disagreement between the "Lambert apologists" and the "Negative Nellies" mostly boils down to their interpretation of what rebuilding entails and what's the best approach in the long run.  It's clear Lerner, Lambert and Faulkner all agreed it's best to start from scratch with young (mostly), hungry, passionate players on similar (mostly) wages to bond and get the high-earners out the door.  This approach required spreading the transfer kitty and salary funds among more players, with the obvious sacrifice in quality and greater risk of signing flops.   It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.  But if the plan works, the club is in a good position financially and can start rewarding the players who did well with better contracts and replacing those who didn't with better quality at higher wages without blowing the wages out of the water again.  If you accept this approach, then the club's record since Lambert took over isn't necessarily the most important measure of success at this point in the project, as long as the club stays up.  At the moment, you could argue that Lambert has been successful, if only by a margin, against this measure.  If the rest of the plan plays out (relegation is avoided, money from clearing out dead wood is made available for better players in the summer), next season is the real test of both Lamber and Lerner.   Football style and results need to be significantly better and showing signs of continuous improvement.

 

If you don't agree that a total clearout was necessary, as a number of you don't, then of course it's hard to view Lambert as being successful.   As you've argued, the transfer funds could have gone to fewer players of higher quality and results likely would have been better to date.  The question is whether the club would be better posed for a resurgence after this season under this scenario.  You clearly believe so.   Team togetherness and the ability to build up from a good foundation, both football-wise and financially, would probably not be as good but maybe results would be similar without having had to go through 2 seasons of relagation risk and unattactive football.  We may never know.

 

Lambert was clearly brought on board to do the job in a particular way.  Slate him for choosing to go along with the plan if you want, or slate Lerner for hiring a manager to take this approach.   But given the job he was asked to do, I don't think Lambert's been too bad.

 

Where did this sensible, straight-talking man come from????

 

I see you're still relatively new Serpente, hence the rational, thought-out and well argued post. We'll forgive you this time but don't let us catch you doing it again.

[jacketspuds]

So any speculation today or will this thread continue to be an extension of the "Why Paul Lambert should get the sack" thread?

I'm pretty happy with our business so far but we really could do with Hoolahan in befour the WBA game.

[Electric Avenue]

Just goes to show how "conditioned" the avfc fan base has become. I for one am very unhappy with the state of affairs down B6. I think come 5pm on 1 Feb, there'll be plenty of gnashing of teeth on here as we tumble toward another ugly relegation dogfight. Still, it keeps the season alive I guess following the FA cup debacle which was our last chance of a modicum of success this season.

[Big_John_10]

I hate using the word fact but there's 3 that I think are quite important at the moment.

1) the books are balanced and possibly in profit

2) we no longer pay any money to Steven Ireland

3) Lambert has admitted not being able to bring in some 'number 10' players that he's identified.

I guess we'll continue to wait for this plan to start working then? We'll just praise what it might do in the future and ignore what its not doing right now.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Big_John_10

[Morpheus]

Ignoring the usual petty sarcasm I've asked you on four occasions now to produce a simple stat of Lambert's match record during his tenure with us and on every occasion you have refused.

I've asked you to do this because previously you seem very willing to pull a graph out of your back pocket to try and prove that Lambert is doing a good job. One would assume that one of the most telling factors whether Lambert is doing a good job or not is our overall match record under him, yet as I say, you refuse to show this.

 

But indignantly demanding that someone you're disagreeing with post the particular stat that supports your own position isn't petty?   If you've got an argument to make, make it yourself.

 

The basic disagreement between the "Lambert apologists" and the "Negative Nellies" mostly boils down to their interpretation of what rebuilding entails and what's the best approach in the long run.  It's clear Lerner, Lambert and Faulkner all agreed it's best to start from scratch with young (mostly), hungry, passionate players on similar (mostly) wages to bond and get the high-earners out the door.  This approach required spreading the transfer kitty and salary funds among more players, with the obvious sacrifice in quality and greater risk of signing flops.   It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.  But if the plan works, the club is in a good position financially and can start rewarding the players who did well with better contracts and replacing those who didn't with better quality at higher wages without blowing the wages out of the water again.  If you accept this approach, then the club's record since Lambert took over isn't necessarily the most important measure of success at this point in the project, as long as the club stays up.  At the moment, you could argue that Lambert has been successful, if only by a margin, against this measure.  If the rest of the plan plays out (relegation is avoided, money from clearing out dead wood is made available for better players in the summer), next season is the real test of both Lamber and Lerner.   Football style and results need to be significantly better and showing signs of continuous improvement.

 

If you don't agree that a total clearout was necessary, as a number of you don't, then of course it's hard to view Lambert as being successful.   As you've argued, the transfer funds could have gone to fewer players of higher quality and results likely would have been better to date.  The question is whether the club would be better posed for a resurgence after this season under this scenario.  You clearly believe so.   Team togetherness and the ability to build up from a good foundation, both football-wise and financially, would probably not be as good but maybe results would be similar without having had to go through 2 seasons of relagation risk and unattactive football.  We may never know.

 

Lambert was clearly brought on board to do the job in a particular way.  Slate him for choosing to go along with the plan if you want, or slate Lerner for hiring a manager to take this approach.   But given the job he was asked to do, I don't think Lambert's been too bad.

Thanks for the advice but as regular readers of this forum would tell you I have continually put my argument forward and that argument is not exclusive to just the above stat. If however you feel that asking the said poster to be balanced in his argument by producing a stat showing Lambert's overall record with us is petty please avail me of another stat showing Lambert's overall performance which in your opinion, isn't?

Secondly it isn't clear at all that the Chief Executive, Chairman and manager made a collective decision on a policy of youth. What is clear though is that the Chief Executive has already stated that Lambert was given a budget and it was up to him how he spent it. That is further substantiated by who we've been linked to and who we've signed this season. The fact is that with one relegation battle behind us under Lambert and losing six out of the last eight this season Lambert has realised that his youth policy has failed and is now targeting more Premiership experience which he should have done from the start. Several posters on this site including myself stated that under this policy we would struggle and I don't think to date we have been proven wrong.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[Big_John_10]

Haha

And that's why I'm not a big fan of using the word

[lexicon]

 

It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.

I find this bit very interesting. If you thought we'd be in a relegation battle last year you were laughed at and mocked. Now its obvious we were risking it for a couple of years.

Don't remember many posts last year saying another relegation battle was expected this year.

It just seems no matter what happens a certain group will just change their expectations in order to support the manager.

 

 

We're not in a relegation battle this year. Not yet anyway. 

[Marley the Bognor Villan]

In Lambert we trust!

[Morpheus]

It also means risking relegation for a season or two until ther funds can go to quality vs. quantity.

I find this bit very interesting. If you thought we'd be in a relegation battle last year you were laughed at and mocked. Now its obvious we were risking it for a couple of years.

Don't remember many posts last year saying another relegation battle was expected this year.

It just seems no matter what happens a certain group will just change their expectations in order to support the manager.

BJ10 I have no problem with people supporting the manager as it is their right to do that as it is my right to criticise him. However it is the selective reasoning put forward that I take issue with which the majority of stats or performances just don't support and then the critics being described as moaners.

Every critic of Lambert has substantiated his point of view with performance related stats or just base their criticism on what they have been witnessing on the pitch under Lambert and indeed under previous managers although even though there is some parity between the results under Mcleish and Lambert I certainly don't remember Mcleish being defended so vigorously. To me that lacks objectivity and leaves those posters wide open to the accusation of favouritism.