Paul Lambert

[Amo69]

True but the jury is very much still out in terms of his managerial ability. I just hope a 3rd season to prove himself isn't the nail in the coffin.

[Dodgyknees]

True but the jury is very much still out in terms of his managerial ability. I just hope a 3rd season to prove himself isn't the nail in the coffin.

 

We just need to back other teams for the next few weeks, and hope things can get better.

[lexicon]

 

It's your win percentage that really matters.

Oh OK, 27% woohoo

 

 

Better than 21% in all comps. 

True but the jury is very much still out in terms of his managerial ability. I just hope a 3rd season to prove himself isn't the nail in the coffin.

 

 I very much doubt he'll get a season if he's backed sufficiently and **** up.

Edited April 6, 2014 by lexicon

[GENTLEMAN]

 

Very mature. Who would you replace Lambert with?

Gentleman, I don't see the point of using this as your go-to Lambert defence when it ultimately directs the conversation from tangible points made about Lambert's record here to a discussion based upon hypotheticals in which neither side can prove anything. Ultimately, whoever anybody suggests to replace him, you will respond with a 'you don't know they will do any better than Lambert'. Just totally pointless.

 

It is pointless because not a lot will change unless the ownership changes or the current owner provides more funds. If you want Lambert sacked, then why is it so unreasonable to present a name to replace him? Have some conviction in your beliefs for goodness' sake.

 

If all you can resort to is personal abuse and not have the courage to present a name to replace Lambert, It is indicative of a weak argument IMO. Besides, it is far too easy to tear apart Lambert's record and ignore other factors that contribute to it.

 

It all boils down to a lack of understanding, a lack of patience, and a lack of respect. 

[foreveryoung]

Lambert over 2 seasons still hasn't installed confidence, has problems motivating the team, does not trust the team and plays worst football than we first started with. He has not built this team into his own. Going to home games lately, the football is just very messy, hardly anyone stays in there position I can hardly ever see the game plan and he continues to play players who give nothing i.e Wiemann. He has no trust in our youth, Gardener, Robinson, Carruthers. Who to be fair would be impossible to be any worst than Tonev, Wiemann etc. To me he cant get the best out of any of our players. There's not one player who gives 100% every game, this can only be down to coaching and the manager. Ok were down on quality but this team did beat Chelsea a couple of weeks ago then could hardly compete against Stoke???

[GENTLEMAN]

 

True but the jury is very much still out in terms of his managerial ability. I just hope a 3rd season to prove himself isn't the nail in the coffin.

 

We just need to back other teams for the next few weeks, and hope things can get better.

 

We need to back OUR team!

[lexicon]

The point of change comes in the summer transfer windows and has done since they were introduced. We'll see what happens. 

[AndyM3000]

So it's a lack of money as to why Baker keeps hoofing the ball up front and out of play? 

 

Another manager would get more out of this squad/team. Glenn Hoddle wouldn't be the worst thing and although he isn't going down this path Gary Neville would be a great manager, talks so much sense.

 

Im sure there are European managers who could do a good job, I don't know anyone because I don't pay too much attention to them leagues and to be honest I doubt anyone on the Villa board do either.

[foreveryoung]

Gentleman! Back up your claims with positives, cause I don't see any??

[penguin]

Very mature. Who would you replace Lambert with?

Gentleman, I don't see the point of using this as your go-to Lambert defence when it ultimately directs the conversation from tangible points made about Lambert's record here to a discussion based upon hypotheticals in which neither side can prove anything. Ultimately, whoever anybody suggests to replace him, you will respond with a 'you don't know they will do any better than Lambert'. Just totally pointless.

It is pointless because not a lot will change unless the ownership changes or the current owner provides more funds. If you want Lambert sacked, then why is it so unreasonable to present a name to replace him? Have some conviction in your beliefs for goodness' sake.

If all you can resort to is personal abuse and not have the courage to present a name to replace Lambert, It is indicative of a weak argument IMO. Besides, it is far too easy to tear apart Lambert's record and ignore other factors that contribute to it.

It all boils down to a lack of understanding, a lack of patience, and a lack of respect.

How can you be so sure of that?

There has been plenty of sides which have had a change of fortune upon replacing a manager outside of transfer windows. Of course money is a factor but to say not a lot will change by changing the manager is, in my opinion, quite absurd.

Edited April 6, 2014 by penguin

[Dr_Pangloss]

So it's a lack of money as to why Baker keeps hoofing the ball up front and out of play? 

 

Another manager would get more out of this squad/team. Glenn Hoddle wouldn't be the worst thing and although he isn't going down this path Gary Neville would be a great manager, talks so much sense.

 

Im sure there are European managers who could do a good job, I don't know anyone because I don't pay too much attention to them leagues and to be honest I doubt anyone on the Villa board do either.

That remains to be seen, it's easy to sit on your arse and talk about the game, it's another thing to practically apply tactics, manage individuals and be able to put up with the extreme day to day pressures of being a football manager.

 

There's a reason Neville is working for Sky rather than looking to become a manager, and that's because he knows he can't hack it.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Dr_Pangloss

[Mantis]

 

I've been through this already before - the barometer of progress should always be league position

This is absolute rubbish and quite frankly sums up your whole opinion.

Points show how we've done over 38 games. The league table shows how we've done compared to everyone else. More teams doing worse than us this season is not an indication that we've progressed. It's nothing to do with us how poor other teams are.

Absolute nonsense.

 

 

As I already said, points are pretty much meaningless when taken on their own and without context. 39 points for example can get you relegated one season and yet in another season it can potentially get you 13th/14th. The whole point of being in a league is to try and finish as high as possible - if a team gets more points but finishes lower in the league then that isn't progress.

 

And how pathetic that you seemingly aren't able to disagree with me without getting in personal digs and calling my opinion "rubbish" and nonsense".

 

 

 

Came across this when looking at some of the older posts from this thread:

 

Regardless of what we did under McLeish, we're much more entertaining now, for better or worse! 

 

f**king 7 defenders.. My arse.

If we include Bacuna (which is fair seeing as Herd counts as a defender in the above claim), then that was seven defenders used today. A good way to add to a season that has been McLeish-esque for practically it's entire duration.

There was a reason for that you know - it's called injuries.

That was McLeish's reasoning too.

 

Actually it wasn't because we had no major injury problems at that time. Where on Earth did you get that from?

Edited April 6, 2014 by Mantis

[GENTLEMAN]

 

 

 

Very mature. Who would you replace Lambert with?

Gentleman, I don't see the point of using this as your go-to Lambert defence when it ultimately directs the conversation from tangible points made about Lambert's record here to a discussion based upon hypotheticals in which neither side can prove anything. Ultimately, whoever anybody suggests to replace him, you will respond with a 'you don't know they will do any better than Lambert'. Just totally pointless.

It is pointless because not a lot will change unless the ownership changes or the current owner provides more funds. If you want Lambert sacked, then why is it so unreasonable to present a name to replace him? Have some conviction in your beliefs for goodness' sake.

If all you can resort to is personal abuse and not have the courage to present a name to replace Lambert, It is indicative of a weak argument IMO. Besides, it is far too easy to tear apart Lambert's record and ignore other factors that contribute to it.

It all boils down to a lack of understanding, a lack of patience, and a lack of respect.

How can you be so sure of that?

There has been plenty of sides which have had a change of fortune upon replacing a manager outside of transfer windows. Of course money is a factor but to say not a lot will change by changing the manager is, in my opinion, quite absurd.

 

It may, possibly, give us a short term boost. But you cannot build a team on that premise unless you have unlimited amounts of money, which we do not. My point is we will get to a stage when we want the next guy sacked for failing to deliver, and the cycle will begin again. It is entirely pointless IMO. 

[Risso]

 

It may, possibly, give us a short term boost. But you cannot build a team on that premise unless you have unlimited amounts of money, which we do not. My point is we will get to a stage when we want the next guy sacked for failing to deliver, and the cycle will begin again. It is entirely pointless IMO. 

 

 

 

Lambert hasn't delivered on any level.  His football is atrocious, and 10 defeats at HOME, plus defeat at home against a lower division club in the cup would have seen him sacked by just about any other club.  Worrying about who might come next isn't a defence for somebody as dismal as Lambert.  He absolutely has to get the sack, his record is indefensible, and his utter lack of ability there for all to see.

[tomaspg]

but you can build on a premise of a manager which doesnt manage to imrpove the results nor the team? do you really belive that there isnt a single manager out there that can perform better than lambert?

[terrytini]

 

Well if he stays (I don't think he will) , ST sales will be absolutely devastated . There are and will be plenty of good managers available this summer for us to choose from .

Odd that if they are any good they will be available...............

[VillaGoMarching]

A pragmatic manager like Roy Hodgson or dare I say it Tony Pulis would be getting better results than Lambert currently is. And the football arguably wouldn't be any worse.

[Risso]

 

Well if he stays (I don't think he will) , ST sales will be absolutely devastated . There are and will be plenty of good managers available this summer for us to choose from .

Odd that if they are any good they will be available...............

 

 

So every manager out of work = bad, every manager in work = good?  That's an incredibly simplistic and naïve view of things.

[terrytini]

 

Very mature. Who would you replace Lambert with?

Gentleman, I don't see the point of using this as your go-to Lambert defence when it ultimately directs the conversation from tangible points made about Lambert's record here to a discussion based upon hypotheticals in which neither side can prove anything. Ultimately, whoever anybody suggests to replace him, you will respond with a 'you don't know they will do any better than Lambert'. Just totally pointless.

It is pointless because not a lot will change unless the ownership changes or the current owner provides more funds. If you want Lambert sacked, then why is it so unreasonable to present a name to replace him? Have some conviction in your beliefs for goodness' sake.

If all you can resort to is personal abuse and not have the courage to present a name to replace Lambert, It is indicative of a weak argument IMO. Besides, it is far too easy to tear apart Lambert's record and ignore other factors that contribute to it.

It all boils down to a lack of understanding, a lack of patience, and a lack of respect.

How can you be so sure of that?

There has been plenty of sides which have had a change of fortune upon replacing a manager outside of transfer windows. Of course money is a factor but to say not a lot will change by changing the manager is, in my opinion, quite absurd.

So plenty of sides have had a change of fortunes by changing the Manager have they ?

So presumably they are up there challengign at the top are they ? Oh, no, those challenging are still the same teams, with an annual exceptional odditiy.

This is the whole fallacy of your argument - the 'changes of fortunes' you speak of are a temporary illusion, with clubs almost inevitably quickly returning to a position equating wit htheir salary spend.

[terrytini]

 

Well if he stays (I don't think he will) , ST sales will be absolutely devastated . There are and will be plenty of good managers available this summer for us to choose from .

Odd that if they are any good they will be available...............

 

So every manager out of work = bad, every manager in work = good?  That's an incredibly simplistic and naïve view of things.

No, it isn't, and I didn't say it. I said it would be - wouldn't it ? - if 'PLENTY' of good Managers were available - why wouldn't they be in work ?

It isn't simplistic, the simplistic view is that a new Manager makes any significant difference, in anything other than the short run.

Wheras a decent Manager, (yes I know Risso you think our current Manager is a moron, but he would be seen by other Clubs EXACTLY the same way some on here now see Pulis, Hughes, Laudrup, Clarke, etc etc - ) given stability, can acheive reasonable results over a longer term.

Edited April 6, 2014 by terrytini