Paul Lambert

[villabromsgrove]

 

But it isn't necessarily Lamberts 'decision' to 'play with greater freedom' - it could be that it is the players themselves who do, or don't do, that. And how do any of us 'know' why we have played hoofball when we have ? One thing for sure, if we played as well as we can do all the time we would be in the Top 5 - surely that is unreasonable and therefore, by definition, we should expect much poorer displays within the whole ?

Also, the logic of 'playing with greater freedom' would also apply to many other teams - so why don't they all do it ?

 

If it isn't Paul Lambert's decision to "play with a greater freedom" then that would suggest that the players are running the team. If Lambert didn't agree with us playing "hoof ball" he would put a stop to it, he's only feet away from the action and it's his job to get them to follow the game plan.

 

We are 10th in the league despite some of the woeful "tactics" that have passed for football this season. I would suggest that it is fortunate that when the pressure's off against a "top team" we have played differently, and well enough to get the points which separate us from the foot of the table.

 

I simply don't believe that the players decide when and how to play …. that's actually a damning criticism of PL's management.

[Rovers13]

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

Villa had more injuries and key players out. Holt only started because gabby was injured.

No other options that Grant Holt?

We had gabby missing, who else?

The point was after 2 good results and performances we chose to go 3 at the back with Holt upfront. It shows how lambert wanted us to play in that game on the back of 2 excellent performances.

Possibly the plan changed because everton play differently from both Liverpool and west brom?

[Big_John_10]

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

Villa had more injuries and key players out. Holt only started because gabby was injured.

No other options that Grant Holt?

We had gabby missing, who else?

The point was after 2 good results and performances we chose to go 3 at the back with Holt upfront. It shows how lambert wanted us to play in that game on the back of 2 excellent performances.

Possibly the plan changed because everton play differently from both Liverpool and west brom?

Then surely it shows a lack of confidence in his team if he didn't think we could play like we did at anfield.

[Intercourse_The_Penguin]

I started calling him Captain Hindsight. lol

 

Regardless to pick up a few points here Everton weren't there for the taking we had injury troubles too and if memory serves me right we were winning until 70 odd mins.

 

Peoples views in the positive camp haven't changed after the last two games and I doubt peoples have from the negative camp either.

 

 

Well, mine have. I'd honestly lost patience with the standard of football this season. Not so long ago it was really hard to see progress. Quite the opposite, I thought. Too many players going backwards, and tactics being ossified and predictable.

 

I'm prepared to admit now I may have been a bit hasty. Not only a couple of good results, but some of the progress we thought we might have been seeing with key players last season is in some evidence again.

 

 

 

But then again I never liked DOL, so it's clear I've always been fickle...

[bannedfromHandV]

 

 

 

 

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

Villa had more injuries and key players out. Holt only started because gabby was injured.

No no no, that sounds like relatively well thought out reasoning?

Holt played because Lambert had no interest in winning that game, surely you must know that!?!?

Haha

Your arguments are awful. You seem to be suggesting we should all just nod and smile about everything because its what the manager chose to do. Ridiculous.

 

 

No, your position seems to be that when we win and play well it's to be expected and when we don't it's Lamberts fault for being an idiot.

 

The whole debate this morning has been about that. 

 

I agree that in retrospect the tactis were not right against Everton however, had we held on for a 1-0 win but the game panned out exactly the same (lets say Naismith puts his effort wide and Mirralas blazes his freekick high and wide) I very much doubt whether you would be referencing it in this way - that is hindsight at its worst.

 

It's not about nodding and smiling at every decision but it is about recognition for the fact that Lambert picks teams and tactics with the sole purpose of trying to win a football match, not trying to lose one as you would seem to have us all believe.

 

He will get things wrong, as does every other Manager

[suttonpaul]

Well Mr Penguin I'm happy you are happier now.

 

May I suggest it may be easier to follow a club like Villa with a modicum of hope if you look forward and judge things over seasons and projects as lets face it we go through tough times now and again.

[Big_John_10]

No, your position seems to be that when we win and play well it's to be expected and when we don't it's Lamberts fault for being an idiot.

The whole debate this morning has been about that.

Then you need to read things again. When we've done well I've given lambert the credit for it. Full credit and he deserves it. When its been bad then I think he deserves the blame.

I agree that in retrospect the tactis were not right against Everton however, had we held on for a 1-0 win but the game panned out exactly the same (lets say Naismith puts his effort wide and Mirralas blazes his freekick high and wide) I very much doubt whether you would be referencing it in this way - that is hindsight at its worst.

Haha you are struggling today. You're now creating a made up situation to predict what I'd do in order to have a go at me. Hahaha that's brilliant.

not trying to lose one as you would seem to have us all believe.

Care to point out where I've said that?

[bannedfromHandV]

Well you've not denied it? (re: Everton game and had we gone on to win)

 

You've repeatedly stated that you believe Lambert is deliberately telling the team to play the way they play when they play poorly - do you now deny this?

[Big_John_10]

Well you've not denied it? (re: Everton game and had we gone on to win)

You've repeatedly stated that you believe Lambert is deliberately telling the team to play the way they play when they play poorly - do you now deny this?

I 100% believe the manager tells the team to play the way they do. You don't?

[bannedfromHandV]

 

Well you've not denied it? (re: Everton game and had we gone on to win)

You've repeatedly stated that you believe Lambert is deliberately telling the team to play the way they play when they play poorly - do you now deny this?

I 100% believe the manager tells the team to play the way they do. You don't?

 

 

Not 100% of the time no, they're not robots - you can't just type in some code and expect them to work only to that command for 90 minutes.

 

Football is fluid, perhaps the most fluid sport in the world(?), quite often positions and tactics go out the window and it comes down to the players own initiative, experience and ability to either a; put the ball in the net or b; stop it going in the net.

 

I believe Lambert and all other Managers send teams out with instructions but are they followed to the tee? I'd suggest in most instances no they're not.

 

Perhaps it's time to put Football Manager down for a while because in the real world there actually other factors at work that decide whether you win a football match or not.

Edited March 17, 2014 by bannedfromHandV

[Big_John_10]

Oh a foot man comment as a dig. Nice. You're doing well this morning.

I believe when we play negative hoof ball its because the manager told them to. I also think playing narrow formations and 3 cbs restricts what the players can do and again this is the manager choosing to play that way.

Likewise when we've played with width and attacking intent that's down to the managers decisions and how he's asked his team to play.

[TrentVilla]

It is a bit of a jump to claim that just because we play a narrow formation with 3 CB's that the manager has instructed the players to play negative hoofball. I'm not sure there is anything to back that up other than your personal opinion.

[Big_John_10]

I didn't.

I mentioned them in two separate sentences.

When we play 3 cbs or a narrow formation it limits how we attack and that's the managers choice to try and get the result. The same when we play negative hoofball, its because the manager has instructed it.

[TrentVilla]

Well either way, I just don't accept that Lambert sends the team out with instructions to play negative hoofball.

[Isa]

Well either way, I just don't accept that Lambert sends the team out with instructions to play negative hoofball.

Three centre-backs against a West Ham side playing with no strikers? The negativity is implicit in the selections and tactical nature of them. It doesn't have to be verbal.

[villabromsgrove]

I don't think you have to be a football manager to identify Villa's tactics for the majority of this seasons matches. Launch it long from the keeper to the big man, keep it narrow in front of the box and try to pick up enough second ball in the danger area to nick a goal …. when it's worked and we go in front we then drop deep and try to keep out the opposition for the rest of the match, hoping for the occasional counter attack.

 

That's why the Chelsea game was so enjoyable because we knew that the "Guzan to Benteke" plan wasn't going to phase them, so the only option we had was to take them on at their own game. It didn't matter if we got stuffed because Chelsea were expected to win. Hats off to the manager and the team for giving it a real go.

 

I know it's not as simple as I've made it sound, but it's all about the intent. "Try and win rather than try not to lose" used to be Paul Lambert's football philosophy, now on the rare occasions when he really goes for it the team seem to respond well. 

[Big_John_10]

Well either way, I just don't accept that Lambert sends the team out with instructions to play negative hoofball.

Why? Did you accept it when it happened under McLeish?

We've played hoofball on so many occasions that I'd be even more concerned if he didn't instruct them to. Either the players ignore his instructions or they're not capable of following his instructions. Both are pretty bad and much worse than lambert telling them to play that way.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Big_John_10

[TrentVilla]

 

Well either way, I just don't accept that Lambert sends the team out with instructions to play negative hoofball.

Three centre-backs against a West Ham side playing with no strikers? The negativity is implicit in the selections and tactical nature of them. It doesn't have to be verbal.

 

 

That is just your view, my view is that he picks a line up and formation that gives him what he thinks is the best chance of winning the game. 

[Big_John_10]

Well either way, I just don't accept that Lambert sends the team out with instructions to play negative hoofball.

Three centre-backs against a West Ham side playing with no strikers? The negativity is implicit in the selections and tactical nature of them. It doesn't have to be verbal.

That is just your view, my view is that he picks a line up and formation that gives him what he thinks is the best chance of winning the game.

I'd change winning the game to getting a result and I'd agree. But then I'm sure the same could be said for 99% of all managers in all levels of football.

[TrentVilla]

 

Well either way, I just don't accept that Lambert sends the team out with instructions to play negative hoofball.

Why? Did you accept it when it happened under McLeish?

We've played hoofball on so many occasions that I'd be even more concerned if he didn't instruct them to. Either the players ignore his instructions or they're not capable of following his instructions. Both are pretty bad and much worse than lambert telling them to play that way.

 

 

Yes because he did things like pick a team at home against Spurs with 6 defenders in it and Heskey in midfield. Just because I thought it about the football under McLeish doesn't mean I have to think it about what I see under Lambert. McLeish has spent his entire managerial career playing that way, Lambert hasn't the two are completely different.

 

I don't really think we do play long ball (I'm sick of this daft term goofball) half as much as you do. Sure we've at times gone direct to Benteke but not often enough to say that is the way we play all the time. Most of the time I would say we try and pass the ball but the level of players we have means that we aren't able to do this consistently and at times the players resort to the easy option of going direct, a consequence of having a player like Benteke up front.

 

I just don't accept your conclusion that Lambert sends his players out to play long or direct football or the that the players ignore him completely and that those are the only two reasons why in some games we've been more direct than we perhaps like.