heid3ster Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Help me get this straight in my head: For Lambert - Results have improved compared last season - Wage bill trimmed - Players have a resell value (or, at least, don't constitute a huge loss) - 18 months into a 5 year rebuild Against Lambert - Performances have been poor - Formation/tactics/substitutions poor - Squad confidence low Is that about right? Or too simplistic? I don't think it's quite right. First of all, I'm in the "For Lambert" group and I would agree with what's listed under "Against Lambert" -- not sure even the strongest Lambert supporter can deny that squad confidence seems low and that the performances have been poor. I probably don't know enough about formations and tactics to comment (though that doesn't always seem to stop others), but I've been particularly baffled by some of Lambert's subs, and also aggravated at how late he makes them. The "18 months into a 5 year rebuild" is the key factor for me in the "For" column. In addition to the young players he's signed having resale value, the theory is that they also have potential to improve. I think you'd need to add "Spent 40m on mediocre/poor/wrong type of players" to the Against column, as well as "Awful football/Boring/Hoofball," "Poor home form" and "No clear plan moving forward." Those seem to be the most frequent and vociferous complaints. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) You'll have to explain how it wouldn't have made more sense to buy some experienced players at the start, thus maybe helping us avoid the relegation battle last season and the crisis of poor form we have been experiencing this autumn/winter. Lambert could not afford to sign the experience players that would make a real difference to the team. Besides, did you forget the experience we were carrying in the two relegation battles before Lambert arrived at the club. Crisis this season? Be serious now. Can't see it's exactly a masterstroke to watch a team of untried youngsters struggle for a season and a half and then conclude what is needed is more experience. There was no choice but to sign younger talent given what we could offer to players, it is out of PL's hands. But I am sure Lambert only signed youngster to spite his detractors on VT, especially you Briny. Edited January 8, 2014 by GENTLEMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted January 8, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 8, 2014 We might be seeing a switch from plan A to plan B. When Lambert got the job I would think the club imposed some parameters like, bring the wage bill down to 60% of turnover, don't sign players over 26 with no resale value, promote from the academy where you can etc. etc. All very sensible if you ask me given the situation when PL took over. The results are what has caused people to gripe last season, so PL has tightened up and become more effective at the cost of good football. Now the style is the problem for a lot of people on here, even though you only have to look at the table this year and compare it to last year to see it's yielded more points. All this criticism won't have fallen on deaf ears, and at the time PL took the job there was probabaly a plan B sketched out. So that if we find ourselves in a situation where the squad isn't coming along as we'd have hoped using the rules in plan A then funds would be released for some more short term aqcuisitions in order to help the young players for a year or two. It's not a U-turn, it's not an admission of failure, it is an attempt to insure that the overall goals of plan A; wages 60% of turnover, a young squad, a good percentage of which came through the academy, which means we will be making money and not losing it by selling players in the future. Making money from transfer activity, more TV revenue, wages under control etc. were all the short term goals I would think. Once we have that acheived and the deadwood that have still not been shifted are gone, then we're in a very good position to invest in the playing staff at a different level than the massive changes PL had to bring about on a low budget in order to reach the clubs goals as soon as possible. Personally I think, when you look at it like that, then PL has done some very good work for us so far. By no means will the squad be his dream team or anything like it until after the club and himself feels the initial short term goals to turn this club around have been acheived. Then he can start to build something to close the gap of a "million miles" (his words) from where we are to where we should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) It is a ridiculous statement and in explaining why i'll be succinct. Why is any manager sacked? Why does your respective chairman then employ another manager? I can understand why like other posters I've posed the same question to, you would find it tedious to address the most important stat of all and not want to answer it and then focus on 'goal difference.' Any manager is sacked due to under performing in their role. Lambert isn't doing this. The football may be awful at the moment, but the team is not under performing. You're right - let's ignore goal difference and focus on the most important stat of all - 11th in the Premier League table. Not a sackable offence homie. No please stick to the point. You said it wasn't in Lambert's remit to make the squad better so if that was the case why then sack the previous manager? Using that type of logic why change the manager with no remit to improve squad and results. Hopefully you'll now see how ridiculous your point is. Lastly one or two other posters have used current league position as an indicator which is fine and when that fluctuated they then changed to away form and then back again ignoring the overall result stat under Lambert. Over our next set of fixtures I'll come back to you and see if you are still as keen to use current league position to judge Lambert's performance. I don't know if you're just being deliberately stubborn for the sake of being deliberately stubborn here, but the previous manager was quite obviously sacked due to fan pressure. At a guess, I'd say Lerner has therefore been cautious since McLeish and chosen to cut back on costs at Villa - which, again, is a perfectly legitimate option given the financial status of the club after a period of mismanagement on the parts of both Lerner and O'Neill. Therefore, fan pressure removes previous manager, new manager comes in with a remit to cut costs whilst keeping the club in the league. Long term goal will be to improve league position and quality etc, but the short term is to provide a stable future. Lambert did that in his first season and he's doing that in his second season too. The cup comments have been (rightly) lambasted by most people but, for me, Premier League survival is more important for the future of Aston Villa than a good cup campaign. I can only assume your main problem is the current poor football being played since you're not conceeding on any point regarding an improved defence, improved league position and points tally, improved goal difference etc. Literally every relevant stat has been better so far this season than last - but this isn't good enough for you. I'd be interested to hear where you think a) the team should be in the league and b ) what the major failing of Paul Lambert is so much so that he deserves to be sacked. The negativity within our fan base has long been a problem and this is no different. Edited January 8, 2014 by bobzy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I can only assume your main problem is the current poor football being played since you're not conceeding on any point regarding an improved defence, improved league position and points tally, improved goal difference etc. Literally every relevant stat has been better so far this season than last - but this isn't good enough for you. I'd be interested to hear where you think a) the team should be in the league and b ) what the major failing of Paul Lambert is so much so that he deserves to be sacked. I'm by no means anti Lambert ( except for the god awful football he makes us play ), but why use stats to compare to last season's first half? Surely it'd make more sense to compare this half season's stats to the stats from last season's second half as it is the immediately preceeding one. Or compare to the stats from McLeish's first half a season, as he was the previous manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Scenario: We stay up, finish 14th, performances up and down for the rest of the season. United finish 5th and Moyes gets the boot. Would people like to get Moyes over Lambert? Damn right! IF Moyes got the boot from United, then I reckon a club of our size is where he'd need to look for his next job. Moyes>>>>>Lambert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raver50032 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If you're saying it's a results business and you want him gone, where would you realistically like Lambert to have us in the league at the moment? BOF - I understand your point, I really do. But, as home fans (and with an occasional dabble away from home in my case) I have to expect more for my £500 each year. We could all write off our home performances, just not bother going as we accept it's going to be rubbish, and merely sit at home watching a live stream of an away match and cheer on the boys to the occasional remarkable smash and grab away win. Like Morpheus says, let's revisit the notion of a results business, and the fact that we're currently 11th (amazingly, all things considered) after our next run of fixtures. I'm sure the goalposts of debate will change once again. 11th isn't a failure with things as they are right now (though I take issue with the management as to how we have stumbled to that position), but as others point out, there is a lengthy part of the season still to go. I would be amazed, from what I have seen, if 11th or at least better than what we achieved last season was our final outcome this term. £30 from me to VT if we finish 11th or higher. This team, Lambert's team, has proven that there is a performance in there somewhere. Crikey, I was in belief that we were witnessing a renaissance in the first 15 minutes against Swansea, culminating sweetly as it did, into a lovely team goal. But then the team reverted to home type. And again through the following home game too. Right now, my enthusiasm is dented and has been for a while, football as a whole for me... Meh. The cinema, does look a much better proposition. I don't go to football matches to become angry, become ill or become bored off my tits. Perhaps it really is time to stop and let the young and hungry supporters do the worrying for me hence... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodigan Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 briny, i'm not sure what i have to explain as it wasn't me who made the decision... perhaps it would have made sense to buy more experienced players - out of interest, how much would you have spent in terms of transfer fees and wages and for that, who do you think you would have gotten? however, if you want an opinion as to why he didn't buy more experienced players, i can think of a couple of possible reasons. firstly, with limited budget in terms of transfer fee and wages, signing on established premier league players would have priced him out of the numbers he needed to buy to build a squad, as opposed to simply a first XI. He may also have needed to show RL that he was able to focus on an agreed strategy of young hungry players with resale value that was likely to increase. Thirdly, he may well have backed his own ability to spot potential and bring out talent in the players that he had identified. fourthly, by buying young players not established in the premier league, he got players who were not going to come in with the attitude that they were bigger or better than AVFC or PL. finally, bringing in experienced players would have created an expectation that they would be playing in the starting XI. by bringing everyone in all with an equal amount to to prove in terms of ability to perform in the premier league, he started with a truly level playing field where he could see who was good enough and who wasn't... when you think of those who have starred over the last season and a half - am not sure many of them would have gotten the chance to do so at clubs with more established first XIs... i have no idea if any or all of these crossed PL's mind, but they all sort of make sense to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raver50032 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 We might be seeing a switch from plan A to plan B. There came a time last season which is often referenced on here - half time at home against Newcastle when Mr Lambert changed tactics and the remainder of the season showed a lot of fight and promise. Although the premise of your post is different in terms of subject reference, it feels clear to me that something needs to change again. I keep my fingers crossed that things work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 couple of points - the fact that lambert is now looking for one or two experienced players to me means nothing like admitting failure. if anything, i would say it was progress. when he came in, he needed to rebuild the squad within the constraints of a very tight budget with players with reasonable (low salaries) that would hold or improve their resale value, while seeing off a number of other players who were highly paid salary-wise, and were worth a fraction of what they were brought in for. we now have a squad full of young players hungry to make a name for themselves and likely to enhance value during their time at villa. that squad kept us up last season and started this season well, although has ryally struggled in the absence of vlaar, and the loss of form of weimann and benteke. from that base, PL is now able to look at his squad and say, how do i now improve this squad - one of the answers to that is bringing in one or two more 'experienced' players. bobzy got it bang on when he said that experience leads to consistency. what was killing us in many of our games was the odd stupid mistake, or the five or ten minute period when heads dropped. adding a couple of wise heads will help our younger players develop this over time played. another solution is to find that creative 'no 10' midfielder - another area of focus that he clearly has at the moment. a youth policy or buy cheap policy doesn't mean you are stuck with that forever - the team evolves and so should the manager's view of how to improve it... seems to me that is exactly what he is trying to do... my second point relates to the fact that we are currently shit and therefore lambert should go. if we look at the shining lights over the good parts that we played last season and this - benteke, delph, vlaar, westwood, lowton, bringing through weimann, baker, clark - all of those happened since lambert joined us. those players have all been good and shit at various stages, which really is what i expect of younger players - consistency is developing over time with some, and maybe not so much with others.... my view is simply that we need to acknowledge the good he has brought out of these players equally with the bad that they all show from time to time... PL - still the man for the job in my opinion... Just one point I'd like to make. You are working on the premise that due to budget constraints Lambert couldn't have better balanced his transfer policy from the start, i.e signed more experienced players. As we've seen recently who we've been linked to you don't necessarily have to pay a fortune to sign more experienced players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Just one point I'd like to make. You are working on the premise that due to budget constraints Lambert couldn't have better balanced his transfer policy from the start, i.e signed more experienced players. As we've seen recently who we've been linked to you don't necessarily have to pay a fortune to sign more experienced players. This is a fair enough point - although I'd argue Lambert wasn't "against" making more experienced signings (Vlaar, El Ahmadi). For me, one has been a decent enough signing whereas the other has been terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodigan Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 he could have bought more experienced players for sure, but lets say he was paying somewhere in the region of 2-3m per player and 15-25k per week - which experienced players could he have brought in last year (that would come and play for the villa) that would not have been met with derision here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If you're saying it's a results business and you want him gone, where would you realistically like Lambert to have us in the league at the moment? BOF if your question is directed at me I wish to clarify again that I don't want him sacked yet. Since for whatever reason and we could debate that reason all day Lambert has now made it known that he wants more experience in the team and therefore I'm intrigued as to who we are going to sign. Hoolahan if signed is a step in the right direction and I did mention this possible transfer last season only to be told that he would be too old. I also welcome the link to Lescott on loan or otherwise as he in my humble opinion would improve us and also show intent, ambition, in the transfer market. We also need more of a physical presence in midfield to create a better balance and allow the younger players to flourish more. I am not blind to the fact that Lambert has culled the high wage earners in favour of more young hungry players and neither do I expect all of those players to hit the ground running in the Premiership but I do believe even with budget constraints he could have spent that budget more wisely. To answer your question directly about league placement. I've already stated elsewhere that a mid table finish would be acceptable to me this season. I can already see you and several other posters ready to hit the keyboard vigorously stating but we're already mid table!! However I am greatly concerned that after coming through an easier set of fixtures and not picking up the expected points tally we are heading into a much harder set of fixtures which might see us drop significantly especially when the present form of our team is very poor and we are struggling to score goals. That could change of course with the unpredictability of our team and if we sign players who will make a difference? That is why it's a wait and see policy with me concerning Lambert at the moment but if results don't improve after the transfer window closes and we become embroiled in yet another relegation battle then that would be it for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 But I am sure Lambert only signed youngster to spite his detractors on VT, especially you Briny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 briny, i'm not sure what i have to explain as it wasn't me who made the decision... perhaps it would have made sense to buy more experienced players - out of interest, how much would you have spent in terms of transfer fees and wages and for that, who do you think you would have gotten? however, if you want an opinion as to why he didn't buy more experienced players, i can think of a couple of possible reasons. firstly, with limited budget in terms of transfer fee and wages, signing on established premier league players would have priced him out of the numbers he needed to buy to build a squad, as opposed to simply a first XI. He may also have needed to show RL that he was able to focus on an agreed strategy of young hungry players with resale value that was likely to increase. Thirdly, he may well have backed his own ability to spot potential and bring out talent in the players that he had identified. fourthly, by buying young players not established in the premier league, he got players who were not going to come in with the attitude that they were bigger or better than AVFC or PL. finally, bringing in experienced players would have created an expectation that they would be playing in the starting XI. by bringing everyone in all with an equal amount to to prove in terms of ability to perform in the premier league, he started with a truly level playing field where he could see who was good enough and who wasn't... when you think of those who have starred over the last season and a half - am not sure many of them would have gotten the chance to do so at clubs with more established first XIs... i have no idea if any or all of these crossed PL's mind, but they all sort of make sense to me... I'm not really sure I follow the logic here. As far as I can see, Lambert is still operating within the financial constraints laid down at the start of his managership and it's not as if the "experienced" players he is thinking of buying now, e.g. Hoolahan, are actually going to break the bank, is it? If he has recognised it was a mistake to have so many inexperienced players in the side, and now sees the value of experience to help them maintain consistency, I'm right behind him, but it is just possible that Lambert's strategy was wrong to start off with and now he is trying to put it right, isn't it? It isn't necessarily the case that everything Paul Lambert does is 100% right and brilliant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 he could have bought more experienced players for sure, but lets say he was paying somewhere in the region of 2-3m per player and 15-25k per week - which experienced players could he have brought in last year (that would come and play for the villa) that would not have been met with derision here? As I've stated in my reply to BOF I did mention Hoolahan last season but was told he was too old so I guess that proves your point rodigan. However it really doesn't matter what we all think on here and as Lambert has shown he picks the players he wants which any manager should do irrespective of what the fans think. If he gets the majority of his signings right then everyone is happy and the manager is rightly praised for that but by the same token if he gets it wrong then he will be rightly criticised although Lambert has received a sabbatical in that criticism due to the fans being aware of the budget constraints. However as we've seen over recent games and particularly at home the fans are starting to lose patience which might now have influenced a change in Lambert's transfer policy. It is my opinion that he could have allocated his budget better but hopefully we are now going to see a few more experienced heads in the team and I believe we'll be all the better for it if it happens? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 It is a ridiculous statement and in explaining why i'll be succinct. Why is any manager sacked? Why does your respective chairman then employ another manager? I can understand why like other posters I've posed the same question to, you would find it tedious to address the most important stat of all and not want to answer it and then focus on 'goal difference.' Any manager is sacked due to under performing in their role. Lambert isn't doing this. The football may be awful at the moment, but the team is not under performing. You're right - let's ignore goal difference and focus on the most important stat of all - 11th in the Premier League table. Not a sackable offence homie. No please stick to the point. You said it wasn't in Lambert's remit to make the squad better so if that was the case why then sack the previous manager? Using that type of logic why change the manager with no remit to improve squad and results. Hopefully you'll now see how ridiculous your point is. Lastly one or two other posters have used current league position as an indicator which is fine and when that fluctuated they then changed to away form and then back again ignoring the overall result stat under Lambert. Over our next set of fixtures I'll come back to you and see if you are still as keen to use current league position to judge Lambert's performance. I don't know if you're just being deliberately stubborn for the sake of being deliberately stubborn here, but the previous manager was quite obviously sacked due to fan pressure. At a guess, I'd say Lerner has therefore been cautious since McLeish and chosen to cut back on costs at Villa - which, again, is a perfectly legitimate option given the financial status of the club after a period of mismanagement on the parts of both Lerner and O'Neill. Therefore, fan pressure removes previous manager, new manager comes in with a remit to cut costs whilst keeping the club in the league. Long term goal will be to improve league position and quality etc, but the short term is to provide a stable future. Lambert did that in his first season and he's doing that in his second season too. The cup comments have been (rightly) lambasted by most people but, for me, Premier League survival is more important for the future of Aston Villa than a good cup campaign. I can only assume your main problem is the current poor football being played since you're not conceeding on any point regarding an improved defence, improved league position and points tally, improved goal difference etc. Literally every relevant stat has been better so far this season than last - but this isn't good enough for you. I'd be interested to hear where you think a) the team should be in the league and b ) what the major failing of Paul Lambert is so much so that he deserves to be sacked. The negativity within our fan base has long been a problem and this is no different. I'm not being stubborn at all. I just don't have an obtuse opinion which excuses Lambert's record with us due to continually looking through claret & blue spectacles that ignores the overall. 12 wins in 49 games with the lowest goals scored in all four divisions producing only two home wins this season and a relegation battle last season. Trying to dress that up with goal difference just doesn't work does it and it's a record that no fan or manager should try and defend. Mcleish was sacked due to fan pressure? That statement is just as ridiculous as saying that Lambert's remit wasn't to make the squad better and i'll be succinct again in explaining that. The chairman employed Mcleish despite knowing how the fan base would react. Secondly, if under Mcleish our results and performances had been better do you honestly think both the fan base and the chairman would have wanted to sack him? Thirdly, you also must remember that under Mcleish we had a decent start and at that time there were very few fans calling for his head. It was after that decent start that performances and results deteriorated and ultimately it was results and performances that got Mcleish sacked and not peer pressure! 'Short term to provide a stable future.' 'Lambert did that in his first season.' I mean really??? You must have a very short memory. Worst ever start to a Premiership season. Worst goals conceded record in over twenty years. Worst defeat in the history of the club. Second lowest points total in Premiership history. Over three games conceded 15 goals with no reply and lost over two legs to Bradford. Secured our Premiership status with only one game to go. And then you have the audacity to state 'the negativity within our fan base has long been a problem.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mendi Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 so he still here not sacked. I am fearing the worst when we play Arsenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemk39 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Scenario: We stay up, finish 14th, performances up and down for the rest of the season. United finish 5th and Moyes gets the boot. Would people like to get Moyes over Lambert? Damn right! IF Moyes got the boot from United, then I reckon a club of our size is where he'd need to look for his next job. Moyes>>>>>Lambert. i'd have thought by now villa fans have had enough of Scottish managers. Scottish managers are poor unless they end in Fergie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodigan Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 to be clear, i do not for one second think that everything that lambert does or has done is right. i do however believe that what we are seeing is a strategy to strip the club back to its bare bones and then rebuild it from the bottom up - a three - five year plan as it were... the fact that this has been done over a number of windows i think is good, as to try and do it all in one go, would almost certainly have been disastrous... i think if we look forward say two seasons and if the club sticks with lambert as the man charged with executing this plan - we will see a squad of players, principally in their mid-20s, and several of which are in their late 20s (agbonlahor, guzan, vlaar, el ahmadi, new 'experienced' signings) most of whom have played in excess of 100 games together in the premier league.... we will lose some along the way, but will lose them at a substantial profit, which will allow us to 'go again' and bring in the next generation... those that we have bought or brought through the academy that don't make it, will disappear at little or no loss... we also have a number of players waiting their chance to continue to feed in from the bottom - carruthers, grealish, gardner, helenius, bowery... if i look at our fully fit squad now, i think we are comfortably a mid-table team (or at least not a relegated team) and could be so for the next four or five years without a dramatic reworking... if we add quality to that squad (both experienced and up and coming) in manageable amounts each window, we will get greater depth, while also improving the quality of our first XI - on this basis, i think the club has a sustainable and financially viable future in the premier league... i also think that the sad reality is, this future does not have villa challenging for the title, or realistically for the CL spots... to do that would require substantial outlays way beyond our revenues or the pockets of RL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts