Paul Lambert

[Cliffy Biro]

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

[Mantis]

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I think that's a bit of a simplistic view. Most of the people you label as thinking Lambert should "get away with it" do have their own criticisms of him and don't think he's entirely blameless, they just don't think he should be sacked either.

[SikhInTrinity]

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs. As for 5 Lump strikers you mention, One was Benteke, without that lump we'd be in the Championship, No2 Kozak, without his contribution in terms of goals, we'd be further down the table, Bowery, Helenius and Holt,  thats a lot of money spunked that is. As for Lambert I'm either here nor there if he stays or goes, the bigger problem is the man sitting across the pond, and until that is rectified, this Aston Villa being in the doldrums will continue. But I do like how Lambert has wasted money on left backs and strikers.

Edited April 9, 2014 by SikhInTrinity

[Ulver]

He'll be gone in the summer. Not long to wait now.

 

I'm convinced.

[Cliffy Biro]

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs. As for 5 Lump strikers you mention, One was Benteke, without that lump we'd be in the Championship, No2 Kozak, without his contribution in terms of goals, we'd be further down the table, Bowery, Helenius and Holt,  thats a lot of money spunked that is. As for Lambert I'm either here nor there if he stays or goes, the bigger problem is the man sitting across the pond, and until that is rectified, this Aston Villa being in the doldrums will continue. But I do like how Lambert has wasted money on left backs and strikers.

 

 

Its not just about what they cost its about their wages and their contributions to the squad aswell, moaning we have a small squad because one or two wingers or midfielders are out when he has bought in 8 players or are either a left back or a striker. Apparently its ok that they are awful players aslong as we didnt spend too much on them. Very nice argument there, tosh.

[The_Steve]

Of course Lambert has his faults, some of his tactical naivety costs us points against Everton. But on the flip side, great tactics won us points against Southampton and Chelsea. Fundamentally, it's nonsensical to blame everything on Lambert. Simply, he cannot be blamed for when players miss chances or make defensive mistakes at crucial points - they are only human after all. 

 

Cardiff spent nearly £40m this year to try and secure league survival and it looks doomed to fail. Both Norwich and Fulham spent over £25m to try and secure survival and one of them will likely be relegated. Sunderland spent nearly £30m and looked doomed to relegation.

 

So considering the budget constraints, injuries and a loss of form in key players, it's a credit to many for the club to pull away from the relegation places.

 

Yes, performances against Stoke and Fulham were simply unacceptable but there is enough ability in the squad to suggest we are progressing somewhat. We have one of the best records against the Top 4 and one of the top teams to rescue points from losing positions. For his faults, Lambert has instilled a fight in the team that other lesser managers might have achieved with the players.

 

On the point of transfers. No manager gets them correct. Given the low cost of many, there is less of an inherent risk. Look at Arsenal - £40m for Ozil who has not proven value for money.

 

How many people wrote off Bacuna? A little inconsistent but he's been an excellent performer at times despite playing out of position (despite his versatility.) Once the club eventually get rid of Bent, Given, Hutton and N'Zogbia, we will be able to invest more money and wages into better quality players. Yes, we badly needed an attacking midfielder in January, but those transfer windows are often for clubs to overspend on players and right now, the club is not in the current position to do it.

 

With rules around FFP and controlling wages to a proportion of turnover, the club needed a giant overhaul. It was going to take years not months. Am I always happy with Lambert? No. Do I generally support Lambert as manager? Yes. Because I understand that in the grand scheme of things that the club is trying to change and sacking the manager achieves little. We will not be relegated and will hopefully bring in some fresh faces in the summer.

 

I'm actually pretty excited for next season when the likes of Bacuna, Kozak, Okore will be back to fitness and more experienced in the league. Progress stutters and it is most frustrating, especially to have surrendered our home form, but again, this problem lies deeper than Lambert's management. 

 

Some big and experienced players are responsible for their performances but we have seen the emergence of Delph who was given his chance by Lambert. Even KEA has looked one of most important players in midfield at times. Ultimately, change would really solve little. Lambert is still in the process of overhauling the squad he inherited from previous managers.

[Isa]

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs.

3 million? I'm pretty sure Bennett cost that (or more) just by himself.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Isa

[Cliffy Biro]

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I think that's a bit of a simplistic view. Most of the people you label as thinking Lambert should "get away with it" do have their own criticisms of him and don't think he's entirely blameless, they just don't think he should be sacked either.

 

 

Thats the only defense i ever here for lambert is the budget hes had and how hes had to get the wage budget down, there literally no other defense for the job he's doing.

[Mantis]

 

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I think that's a bit of a simplistic view. Most of the people you label as thinking Lambert should "get away with it" do have their own criticisms of him and don't think he's entirely blameless, they just don't think he should be sacked either.

 

 

Thats the only defense i ever here for lambert is the budget hes had and how hes had to get the wage budget down, there literally no other defense for the job he's doing.

 

There are other defences people have laid out but these seem to be continuously ignored for some reason.

[Ulver]

To be fair to Lambert. Having had just 45m to improve a side that were allegedly diabolical (yet still stayed up under a supposed even more diabolical manager in McLeish) must've been tough

 

How he's managed to improve us so greatly, with so little is a testament to the blokes amazing managerial powers.

 

Maybe a statue of him looking vacant with hands clapped together on the touchline, would be a fitting reminder once he's gone. With maybe a smaller one of Culverhouse just behind him, sitting down looking at his shoes to set it off perfectly.

 

Lets start a fundraiser now.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Ulver

[Cliffy Biro]

 

 

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I think that's a bit of a simplistic view. Most of the people you label as thinking Lambert should "get away with it" do have their own criticisms of him and don't think he's entirely blameless, they just don't think he should be sacked either.

 

 

Thats the only defense i ever here for lambert is the budget hes had and how hes had to get the wage budget down, there literally no other defense for the job he's doing.

 

There are other defences people have laid out but these seem to be continuously ignored for some reason.

 

 

Well i usually stay away from the thread as it tends to be these same points repeated and im not going through 300 pages of these supposed arguments that justify his horrendous tenure so far.

[ozvillafan]

To be fair to Lambert. Having had just 45m to improve a side that were allegedly diabolical (yet still stayed up under a supposed even more diabolical manager in McLeish) must've been tough

 

How he's managed to improve us so greatly, with so little is a testament to the blokes amazing managerial powers.

 

Maybe a statue of him looking vacant with hands clapped together on the touchline, would be a fitting reminder once he's gone. With maybe a smaller one of Culverhouse just behind him, sitting down looking at his shoes to set it off perfectly.

 

Lets start a fundraiser now.

 

Now you are just being ridiculous! The statue of Culverhouse wouldn't be him "sitting down looking at his shoes" .....

 

... it would him standing up slagging off the supporters behind the bench.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs. As for 5 Lump strikers you mention, One was Benteke, without that lump we'd be in the Championship, No2 Kozak, without his contribution in terms of goals, we'd be further down the table, Bowery, Helenius and Holt,  thats a lot of money spunked that is. As for Lambert I'm either here nor there if he stays or goes, the bigger problem is the man sitting across the pond, and until that is rectified, this Aston Villa being in the doldrums will continue. But I do like how Lambert has wasted money on left backs and strikers.

 

 

Its not just about what they cost its about their wages and their contributions to the squad aswell, moaning we have a small squad because one or two wingers or midfielders are out when he has bought in 8 players or are either a left back or a striker. Apparently its ok that they are awful players aslong as we didnt spend too much on them. Very nice argument there, tosh.

 

 

So if its not about their cost, how exactly has he spunked the money? With the funds available, if he had bought a winger or a midfielder, you would claim he was shit anyway. He addressed an issue with left back, because his gamble on Luna or Bennett wasn't working, none of us complained at the time. He bought a striker in Holt, because Kozak is injured and now Benteke is, so is that not now justified. Complain about his tactics, his home record as that is indefensible, but this is just complete nonsense. Where did I say they were awful, but common sense will tell you if you spend lower fee's on players abroad then there is a chance they may not be an instant hit. Bacuna has proved to be a success.

[Ulver]

 

To be fair to Lambert. Having had just 45m to improve a side that were allegedly diabolical (yet still stayed up under a supposed even more diabolical manager in McLeish) must've been tough

 

How he's managed to improve us so greatly, with so little is a testament to the blokes amazing managerial powers.

 

Maybe a statue of him looking vacant with hands clapped together on the touchline, would be a fitting reminder once he's gone. With maybe a smaller one of Culverhouse just behind him, sitting down looking at his shoes to set it off perfectly.

 

Lets start a fundraiser now.

 

Now you are just being ridiculous! The statue of Culverhouse wouldn't be him "sitting down looking at his shoes" .....

 

... it would him standing up slagging off the supporters behind the bench.

 

 

 

Ha, or Cowans

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

 

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I think that's a bit of a simplistic view. Most of the people you label as thinking Lambert should "get away with it" do have their own criticisms of him and don't think he's entirely blameless, they just don't think he should be sacked either.

 

 

Thats the only defense i ever here for lambert is the budget hes had and how hes had to get the wage budget down, there literally no other defense for the job he's doing.

 

There are other defences people have laid out but these seem to be continuously ignored for some reason.

 

 

Well i usually stay away from the thread as it tends to be these same points repeated and im not going through 300 pages of these supposed arguments that justify his horrendous tenure so far.

 

 

You stay away because your arguments are flawed, you can't use the tactics are shit, you can't use the his home record as they are already used in every debate, so lets start a new one he bought 3 left backs and 5 strikers instead and how he's wasted money, though the signings cost less than Marlon Harewood, who wasn't a wasted signing. Darren Bent is another one that wasn't wasted. Perspective, the total outlay for Ireland, Bent, N'Zogbia and Given is more than what Lambert has spent on his squad.

Edited April 9, 2014 by SikhInTrinity

[Cliffy Biro]

 

 

 

So one half thinks lambert is terrible one half thinks he should get away with it because of budgets and injuries? Its somewhere in the middle, lambert has had enough money to buy a team of his choosing, or did lerner force him to spunk most of it on 3 left backs and 5 lump strikers? He knew the constraints before he came and yet still bought a team that plays awful football and is not capable of winning more than between 7 and 10 games a season. Who's fault is that?

 

Compare our budgets to any team in the league its all irrelevant the facts are lamberts record is atrocious regardless of budgets, lambert is basically in charge of everything football related at the club so yes he absolutely takes a big chunk of responsibility for the absolute shambles that we are at the moment. He's gone from the fan backed favourite to a lot of people wanting him out because of a number of completely unacceptable records and results. Frankly for letting fulham doing the double over us he should have his wages halved.

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs. As for 5 Lump strikers you mention, One was Benteke, without that lump we'd be in the Championship, No2 Kozak, without his contribution in terms of goals, we'd be further down the table, Bowery, Helenius and Holt,  thats a lot of money spunked that is. As for Lambert I'm either here nor there if he stays or goes, the bigger problem is the man sitting across the pond, and until that is rectified, this Aston Villa being in the doldrums will continue. But I do like how Lambert has wasted money on left backs and strikers.

 

 

Its not just about what they cost its about their wages and their contributions to the squad aswell, moaning we have a small squad because one or two wingers or midfielders are out when he has bought in 8 players or are either a left back or a striker. Apparently its ok that they are awful players aslong as we didnt spend too much on them. Very nice argument there, tosh.

 

 

So if its not about their cost, how exactly has he spunked the money? With the funds available, if he had bought a winger or a midfielder, you would claim he was shit anyway. He addressed an issue with left back, because his gamble on Luna or Bennett wasn't working, none of us complained at the time. He bought a striker in Holt, because Kozak is injured and now Benteke is, so is that not now justified. Complain about his tactics, his home record as that is indefensible, but this is just complete nonsense. Where did I say they were awful, but common sense will tell you if you spend lower fee's on players abroad then there is a chance they may not be an instant hit. Bacuna has proved to be a success.

 

 

Because you dont need 3 left backs so even if you bought another 4 for 50p each you'd still be spunking the money, as for the rest dont put forward an argument and then assume what my answer would be and then act like thats somehow a point against me because i wont even bother replying to pathetic attempts like that.

 

Oh and i'll stay away if i choose too, if it means arguing with the likes of you i certainly will be. Hilarious posts of absolute rubbish but looking through yours that seems to be a recurring theme.

[SikhInTrinity]

But you replied anyway.

[penguin]

How is Marlon Harewood a relevant example for money spent? The financial situation and club aspirations where completely different then.

[Papillon]

I think Lambert is decent, but he is far from being even remotely great. He is of course better than people like Di Canio, basically because he holds his temper and he seems like a fair enough guy. Sure he has thrown a few players out of the squad, but there were never a ruckus or players talking behind his back to get him out. In terms of tactics and transfers, he is below par and there are numerous candidates out there with the same ability as him in those departments. So if we are to continue to buy players on the cheap from around the world, we would probably be better off with someone who has a better call on the market. Most of Lambert's transfers have been very poor and some of our best players must shake their heads on the training ground. Buying players like Vlaar and Bertrand (loan) is something most of us could have done, they are known quantities. The real trick is of course to buy 1M players that no-one has ever heard of, and six months later they are good enough. That hasn't happened a lot with Lambert to put it mildly. The players I would give a thumbs up, like Westwood and Bacuna, are still very average players, or even below that even for their price. Benteke was a huge success of course, but it doesn't really help much when players like Luna, Sylla, Tonev, Holt, Kozak, El Ahmadi, Bowery, Lowton and Bennett are standing next to him.

 

I think Lambert will be given a new season, it will be his third and that seems to be the average for managers that neither excel or relegate a team. If he buys a new Benteke, if Okore turns out to be all we wish he is and if we avoid a new Sylla - he will be OK. However, and the odds are more in favor of the next one, if we buy new duds like Tonev and Bowery he is royally screwed. All you need are a few good players to do well, like Southampton have shown this season, so spend the money wisely Mr. Lambert or you will never get a job in this league again.

[Villan4Life]

 

I do find this he spunked it on 3 left backs quite funny, they cost him approximately 3million, we paid more for Marlon Harewood than we did for those left backs.

3 million? I'm pretty sure Bennett cost that (or more) just by himself.

 

Correct Isa, people go oh he only cost under a million (due to other players costing that apparently), fact is Joe Bennett cost us £3.5mil from Boro, their forums and fans was saying that was fee as well.

At time he was an England U21 left back and young, english  players come for a pretty price.

 

Lambert could have done FAR better with the money given than spend that on Joe Bennett and even Tonev was £2.5mil, as Celtic was willing to pay that for him as well.

When you see Michu at £2mil and Marko Arnautovic for £2mil then you know you have overpaid on Bennett & Tonev and some of the others he has brought and refuses to play.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Villan4Life