Brumstopdogs Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 If Lambert's remit was to play dull football and nearly get us relegated 2 seasons on the bounce then I would agree, he has fulfilled his remit. It's like you haven't been following the news for the past six months. Aston Villa has had an injury crisis. The only goalscorer we can talk about, has been out injured. So has many other important players. What do you deem to be acceptable for a squad like Villa with these injuries to key members of the squad? 5 more points? 8? So Villa sack a manager for events he has no control over and because Villa lack 1-3 more victories? How many more points would have other teams got if they didn't have injuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanky Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Houllier has been the worst injury crisis of recent times. Hogg and Bannan/Clark in midfield at one point. We've had injuries this season, we've also been abject quite frequently when most of our big players have been available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Bit pointless this thread at the moment. Nothing at the club matters from the manager or the result on Sunday only the statement at the minute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh621 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Genuinely think some of you are going to be in for a real shock if you think that there is actually a manager out there that could do much better than Lambert has given the injuries and suffocating restraints he has had to work under. Steve Bruce and Mark Hughes say hi ! Both have done better and spent much less (Bruce got Hull promoted and safe in the Premier League and spent £32M in two years compared to £40M spent by lambert in the same period, Hughes signed 7 players and spent £7M at Stoke in his first season) points total isn't that much different tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) The injury crisis was bad under Houllier but it was a different kind of injury crisis. IIRC we had a lot of important players injured at the same time but they weren't really long term injuries, whereas this season we've had Benteke basically injured or at least not properly fit for all but about 4 months, Okore injured for virtually the whole season and Kozak out for half of the season. I can't remember a season where we've had that many severe injuries. They were all big misses in one way or another. Benteke is our talisman and star player, Okore would almost certainly have been better than Baker and Clark and Kozak despite all the shit he gets was probably our second best striker this season when he played (after Benteke). Edited May 9, 2014 by Mantis 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Houllier has been the worst injury crisis of recent times. Hogg and Bannan/Clark in midfield at one point. We've had injuries this season, we've also been abject quite frequently when most of our big players have been available. Luckily Bannan was world class though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 If Lambert's remit was to play dull football and nearly get us relegated 2 seasons on the bounce then I would agree, he has fulfilled his remit. It's like you haven't been following the news for the past six months. Aston Villa has had an injury crisis. The only goalscorer we can talk about, has been out injured. So has many other important players. What do you deem to be acceptable for a squad like Villa with these injuries to key members of the squad? 5 more points? 8? So Villa sack a manager for events he has no control over and because Villa lack 1-3 more victories? Lets just get this straight then villa could possibly sack lambert but he isn't responsible for the crap football served up over 76+ games, all because of a couple of injuries. Come on... when does the manager actually become responsible for what happens on the pitch? I'm all for standing firm in beliefs but backing lambert when he has proven absolutely nothing over 2 seasons is mind boggling. The way lambert sets up the team is not revolutionary, its not attack minded, the formation often doesn't work. In fact we cant even retain the ball half the time. Give this guy more dough to spend and i wouldn't expect things to change in all honesty. Better players or not, even good players can look shit if they don't understand what the fuk the manager wants them to do. Even a manager like pulis knows that you play to players strengths not the other way round. Something lambert has imo not done which is my reason for wanting him gone. It's not personal, just business!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
botak Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Next season we are unlikely to get so much good fortune against the top teams. We were ridiculously lucky against Man City, got Chelsea on an off day, the Arsenal game was a great performance but could have been a very different result with a few breaks going the other way. The worrying thing is how rank we were in so many games against the mid/lower table sides. I would have preferred to lose every game against the top sides but had solid form against the lesser teams, that would be a better sign of progress than a number of victories that were good performances but did involve a fair bit of good fortune. After 2 years of Lambert we can't pass a football under any kind of pressure (evidence of poor coaching), have had many of the worst performances I can ever remember, and have often played football as bad as anything that McLeish served up. He's made a couple of good signings, but wasted the rest of his money. With the squad he inherited + money he has had to spend you can't say that keeping us up by the skin of our teeth actually counts as any kind of achievement. In many other seasons we could have been relegated both times, we have relied on others being worse rather than putting it beyond any doubt on our own merits. Getting relegated would have been an abject failure. Being marginally better than an abject failure does not a success make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Lamberts gone. Read his recent interviews, he is not really giving randy much respect, Has basically said the policy at the club is all wrong. He won't be staying, if its not the results it'll be the Cuslverhouse/karsa issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Ah, the old "luck" argument. Just remember that it works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 If Lambert's remit was to play dull football and nearly get us relegated 2 seasons on the bounce then I would agree, he has fulfilled his remit.It's like you haven't been following the news for the past six months. Aston Villa has had an injury crisis. The only goalscorer we can talk about, has been out injured. So has many other important players. What do you deem to be acceptable for a squad like Villa with these injuries to key members of the squad? 5 more points? 8? So Villa sack a manager for events he has no control over and because Villa lack 1-3 more victories? Andy Carroll is pretty much West Hams only striker and has been out a lot if the season. Michu has been out for a long time and he was a major player for Swansea. It's up to the manager to utilise the players he has got available. Let's not forget in Bowery, Helenious and Holt Lambert still had 3 strikers that he chose to sign, not including gabby and Weiman. Yes and look where west ham were before he came back into the team. Swansea signed bony for £12 mil, imagi e if he'd of got injured as well like kozak did. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa-revolution Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 If Lambert's remit was to play dull football and nearly get us relegated 2 seasons on the bounce then I would agree, he has fulfilled his remit. What if it was to play however we need to in order to stay safe from relegation? He must be some sort of genius then if he can get so close to getting relegated 2 seasons on the bounce and just about survive with a couple of games to go. Now I agree with you Pacbuddies & the answer was staring you in the face all along. Ofcourse he's a ******** genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Lamberts gone. Read his recent interviews, he is not really giving randy much respect, Has basically said the policy at the club is all wrong. He won't be staying, if its not the results it'll be the Cuslverhouse/karsa issues. Well apparently it won't be Randy's decision so what does that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa-revolution Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 If Lambert's remit was to play dull football and nearly get us relegated 2 seasons on the bounce then I would agree, he has fulfilled his remit. It's like you haven't been following the news for the past six months. Aston Villa has had an injury crisis. The only goalscorer we can talk about, has been out injured. So has many other important players. What do you deem to be acceptable for a squad like Villa with these injuries to key members of the squad? 5 more points? 8? So Villa sack a manager for events he has no control over and because Villa lack 1-3 more victories? Andy Carroll is pretty much West Hams only striker and has been out a lot if the season. Michu has been out for a long time and he was a major player for Swansea. It's up to the manager to utilise the players he has got available. Let's not forget in Bowery, Helenious and Holt Lambert still had 3 strikers that he chose to sign, not including gabby and Weiman. & when West Ham were desperately staring down the barrel didn't fat Sam state that they would be ok once he could get a proper team out on the park & that he was confident things would improve dramatically. He was right n' all wasn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Genuinely think some of you are going to be in for a real shock if you think that there is actually a manager out there that could do much better than Lambert has given the injuries and suffocating restraints he has had to work under. Steve Bruce and Mark Hughes say hi ! Both have done better and spent much less (Bruce got Hull promoted and safe in the Premier League and spent £32M in two years compared to £40M spent by lambert in the same period, Hughes signed 7 players and spent £7M at Stoke in his first season) points total isn't that much different tbf You've kind of missed the point, Bruce spent less and took a team from the championship into the premier league and they finished above us. Hughes spent £7M on 7 players, completely changed Stokes style of play and finished comfortably above us. The original poster was suggesting that financial constraints had held Lambett back and that no manager could have done better given the circumstances, these two managers archived considerably more in tougher circumstances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa-revolution Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Genuinely think some of you are going to be in for a real shock if you think that there is actually a manager out there that could do much better than Lambert has given the injuries and suffocating restraints he has had to work under. Steve Bruce and Mark Hughes say hi ! Both have done better and spent much less (Bruce got Hull promoted and safe in the Premier League and spent £32M in two years compared to £40M spent by lambert in the same period, Hughes signed 7 players and spent £7M at Stoke in his first season) points total isn't that much different tbf You've kind of missed the point, Bruce spent less and took a team from the championship into the premier league and they finished above us. Hughes spent £7M on 7 players, completely changed Stokes style of play and finished comfortably above us. The original poster was suggesting that financial constraints had held Lambett back and that no manager could have done better given the circumstances, these two managers archived considerably more in tougher circumstances. So you would take `Potato Head` over Lambert as Villa Manager then? Respectfully I suggest you have a good think before you give us your answer. Edited May 9, 2014 by villa-revolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 What's Lambert done to make him considered a better manager than Bruce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 What's Lambert done to make him considered a better manager than Bruce? At the moment I would say they're pretty even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh621 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Genuinely think some of you are going to be in for a real shock if you think that there is actually a manager out there that could do much better than Lambert has given the injuries and suffocating restraints he has had to work under. Steve Bruce and Mark Hughes say hi ! Both have done better and spent much less (Bruce got Hull promoted and safe in the Premier League and spent £32M in two years compared to £40M spent by lambert in the same period, Hughes signed 7 players and spent £7M at Stoke in his first season) points total isn't that much different tbf You've kind of missed the point, Bruce spent less and took a team from the championship into the premier league and they finished above us. Hughes spent £7M on 7 players, completely changed Stokes style of play and finished comfortably above us. The original poster was suggesting that financial constraints had held Lambett back and that no manager could have done better given the circumstances, these two managers archived considerably more in tougher circumstances. Definitely didn't miss the point, i completely agree with you haha! Managers can mean a lot to players. Only have to pay attention to the ongoings in this season to know that, let alone any others. Sure, Lambert has had some difficult obstacles, but he knew what he signed up for. Maybe he could do a better job with more money, thats usually the case for anything but i reckon he's lost the players, and definitely the fans so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa-revolution Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 What's Lambert done to make him considered a better manager than Bruce? I'll ask you the same question as I posed poster Dukes. Would you take Bruce over Lambert as Villa Manager? Again respectfully I also suggest you have a good think before giving us your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts