nazvfc Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Long ball, short ball, passing non passing ............but for me his biggest problem has been his inability to construct a defence that is anything approaching 'tight' - which I believe is the basis for any team - you can't build on a leaky defence. But Smetrov - would this be the case if Okore had been fit?? the signs were good - the partnership with Vlaar looked good - Baker and Clarke would have been backups. Just saying that had we had the proper partnership we MAY not have leaked goals and turned losses to draws and draws to wins - who's to say??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 "If". The most used word in discussion of Paul Lambert's regime here. Sadly for him, I think we need someone who can manage a bit more than might-have-beens. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 "If". The most used word in discussion of Paul Lambert's regime here. Sadly for him, I think we need someone who can manage a bit more than might-have-beens. True - but are you saying that it's not possible or are you saying no matter the players - it's all the managers fault??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm saying he's had two seasons to do his stuff and if at the end of that all we can say is "if", he doesn't have what it takes to turn the team's performances. It may be unfair on him but management is about making change happen and getting success and he hasn't really achieved hardly any of that so he's had his chance and blown it. (IMO, of course!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm saying he's had two seasons to do his stuff and if at the end of that all we can say is "if", he doesn't have what it takes to turn the team's performances. It may be unfair on him but management is about making change happen and getting success and he hasn't really achieved hardly any of that so he's had his chance and blown it. (IMO, of course!) First year he had to get rid and bring in a myriad of players (some good some not so) so first year you can't hold that against him (or can you if you expect INSTANT results) - 2nd year - you may have a point. Any manager (no matter how good) would struggle having to replace a team with new players on limited funds. I for one won't have this two seasons stuff - 2nd season yes but not first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm saying he's had two seasons to do his stuff and if at the end of that all we can say is "if", he doesn't have what it takes to turn the team's performances. It may be unfair on him but management is about making change happen and getting success and he hasn't really achieved hardly any of that so he's had his chance and blown it. (IMO, of course!) First year he had to get rid and bring in a myriad of players (some good some not so) so first year you can't hold that against him (or can you if you expect INSTANT results) - 2nd year - you may have a point. Any manager (no matter how good) would struggle having to replace a team with new players on limited funds. I for one won't have this two seasons stuff - 2nd season yes but not first! Really? Which players did he get rid of in his first season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post markavfc40 Posted May 10, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) I have some sympathy for Lambert in terms of injuries but sadly they are part and parcel of the game. I think it is a bit of a weak argument to suggest that had Okore been fit things would have been much different though. He is 21 years old, started the season on the bench and when Baker got injured against Arsenal it was Clark who came on. I think it would have taken him some time to settle having come from a much inferior league and having only 70 odd senior games under his belt. I was therefore not surprised to find he was not first choice at the start of the season. As for the others. Benteke will have played in 26 league games for us. When he was out earlier in the season Kozak was still fit and came in for him. The other injuries have been very short term. The injury line also doesn't wash when you consider even at practically full strength we have struggled and served up some right tripe. With a fully fit squad all season, no drops in form, no suspensions would we have finished higher? yes we would assuming of course the other teams continued to have injuries, suspensions and losses of form. Overall we have been no more unfortunate than any other team this season or in past seasons. Under McLeish we lost Jenas for most of the season, Bent for a half a season, Petrov for a third of it, Dunne for a quarter of the season, Given for half a dozen games. I don't remember any of us taking pity on McLeish then and the same applies to Lambert now. Edited May 10, 2014 by markavfc40 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm saying he's had two seasons to do his stuff and if at the end of that all we can say is "if", he doesn't have what it takes to turn the team's performances. It may be unfair on him but management is about making change happen and getting success and he hasn't really achieved hardly any of that so he's had his chance and blown it. (IMO, of course!) First year he had to get rid and bring in a myriad of players (some good some not so) so first year you can't hold that against him (or can you if you expect INSTANT results) - 2nd year - you may have a point. Any manager (no matter how good) would struggle having to replace a team with new players on limited funds. I for one won't have this two seasons stuff - 2nd season yes but not first! Really? Which players did he get rid of in his first season? Get rid was maybe incorrect - but he brought in quite a few to replace those deemed not good enough (by him and by the multitude of experts on the forums). So point still stands - he brought in and had to bed quite a few players - so if people demanded instant success then they would and should have been disappointed. There was a change from old overpaid to young and hungry and with an honour of playing and wearing the claret n blue. So as I said - first year I (personally) did not expect instant success - second I hoped (not demanded) for an improvement. There may not have been but I won't hold it against him - never did against other worse managers (Turner, McNeil et all) and some worse players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosofsaunders Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 To be fair, I think he's just trying to get results to keep us up. When we want to play we pass it around lovely. With better players I think you would see more attractive style under lambert. So will 3 "quality" players be enough? Or will he still be only "getting results" with them? 4 players enough? 5? There is something very wrong with the philosophy of "we can't do it so we won't try till we can". It basically means until he has an X size budget or a Y quality squad, we remain in limbo - never improving and forever flirting with relegation. I think 3 quality players in the right positions would do wonders for our team, for now. That woul see us stop flirting with relegation I think. Then the same again next summer. Improving the team gradually. If were still gash by Christmas then maybe it is time for him to go but I think he deserves that chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I have some sympathy for Lambert in terms of injuries but sadly they are part and parcel of the game. I think it is a bit of a weak argument to suggest that had Okore been fit things would have been much different though. He is 21 years old, started the season on the bench and when Baker got injured against Arsenal it was Clark who came on. I think it would have taken him some time to settle having come from a much inferior league and having only 70 odd senior games under his belt. I was therefore not surprised to find he was not first choice at the start of the season. As for the others. Benteke will have played in 26 league games for us. When he was out earlier in the season Kozak was still fit and came in for him. The other injuries have been very short term. The injury line also doesn't wash when you consider even at practically full strength we have struggled and served up some right tripe. With a fully fit squad all season, no drops in form, no suspensions would we have finished higher? yes we would assuming of course the other teams continued to have injuries, suspensions and losses of form. Overall we have been no more unfortunate than any other team this season or in past seasons. Under McLeish we lost Jenas for most of the season, Bent for a half a season, Petrov for a third of it, Dunne for a quarter of the season, Given for half a dozen games. I don't remember any of us taking pity on McLeish then and the same applies to Lambert now. Well, Villa were in a good position when Benteke got the latest serious injury. Can you accept that this was a big part of Villa's recent run of bad games? If Benteke was injury free, you would not be calling for Lambert to get fired. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 If Benteke was injury free, you would not be calling for Lambert to get fired. There's that little word again! BTW, we got 29 points from the 26 league games he appeared in this season, so 1.1 points per game as opposed to the 1.03 we have achieved overall. Hardly a stunning difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 In a fair chunk of those games he clearly wasn't fit though. That's why he didn't score from September (his initial injury) and January, where he finally appeared to be properly fit. He was on fire after that right up until his current injury. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 In a fair chunk of those games he clearly wasn't fit though. That's why he didn't score from September (his initial injury) and January, where he finally appeared to be properly fit. He was on fire after that right up until his current injury. Mantis, i think your missing the point and the reason most fans want him gone. Even with a fit benteke we have the last 2 years played on the whole, terrible football. One dimensional, narrow, boring football. Also can you honestly say that any of the players he purchased in year 1 have improved in year 2? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Get rid was maybe incorrect - but he brought in quite a few to replace those deemed not good enough (by him and by the multitude of experts on the forums). So point still stands - he brought in and had to bed quite a few players - so if people demanded instant success then they would and should have been disappointed. There was a change from old overpaid to young and hungry and with an honour of playing and wearing the claret n blue. So as I said - first year I (personally) did not expect instant success - second I hoped (not demanded) for an improvement. There may not have been but I won't hold it against him - never did against other worse managers (Turner, McNeil et all) and some worse players Perhaps he shouldn't have brought so many until he'd managed to get rid of the ones he didn't fancy. That's why the wage bill has actually been increasing under Lambert, instead of going down. Also, if you suggest he has replaced players deemed not good enough - players that mcLeish managed to survive with - and replaced them with supposedly better ones, then why hasn't he managed to do better than what McLeish did with those deemed not good enough? Maybe Lambert should have been able to get something out of these players he couldn't get rid of while their wages were still being paid by the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Get rid was maybe incorrect - but he brought in quite a few to replace those deemed not good enough (by him and by the multitude of experts on the forums). So point still stands - he brought in and had to bed quite a few players - so if people demanded instant success then they would and should have been disappointed. There was a change from old overpaid to young and hungry and with an honour of playing and wearing the claret n blue. So as I said - first year I (personally) did not expect instant success - second I hoped (not demanded) for an improvement. There may not have been but I won't hold it against him - never did against other worse managers (Turner, McNeil et all) and some worse players Perhaps he shouldn't have brought so many until he'd managed to get rid of the ones he didn't fancy. That's why the wage bill has actually been increasing under Lambert, instead of going down. Also, if you suggest he has replaced players deemed not good enough - players that mcLeish managed to survive with - and replaced them with supposedly better ones, then why hasn't he managed to do better than what McLeish did with those deemed not good enough? Maybe Lambert should have been able to get something out of these players he couldn't get rid of while their wages were still being paid by the club. McLeish had a team that was settled and been together for more than a few months. I didn't see many complaining about bringing in the players Lambert did at the time - I see everyone is doing so now - hindsight again. McLeish did not bring in young players to add to the team - he brought in highly paid players and experienced and struggled. Different scenario - McLeish had experienced players in the premier league and JUST managed to survive. A little different to Lambert surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Get rid was maybe incorrect - but he brought in quite a few to replace those deemed not good enough (by him and by the multitude of experts on the forums). So point still stands - he brought in and had to bed quite a few players - so if people demanded instant success then they would and should have been disappointed. There was a change from old overpaid to young and hungry and with an honour of playing and wearing the claret n blue. So as I said - first year I (personally) did not expect instant success - second I hoped (not demanded) for an improvement. There may not have been but I won't hold it against him - never did against other worse managers (Turner, McNeil et all) and some worse players Perhaps he shouldn't have brought so many until he'd managed to get rid of the ones he didn't fancy. That's why the wage bill has actually been increasing under Lambert, instead of going down. Also, if you suggest he has replaced players deemed not good enough - players that mcLeish managed to survive with - and replaced them with supposedly better ones, then why hasn't he managed to do better than what McLeish did with those deemed not good enough? Maybe Lambert should have been able to get something out of these players he couldn't get rid of while their wages were still being paid by the club. McLeish had a team that was settled and been together for more than a few months. I didn't see many complaining about bringing in the players Lambert did at the time - I see everyone is doing so now - hindsight again. McLeish did not bring in young players to add to the team - he brought in highly paid players and experienced and struggled. Different scenario - McLeish had experienced players in the premier league and JUST managed to survive. A little different to Lambert surely. Lambert had the same experienced players McLeish did, chose not to / or wasn't able to get anything out of them, kept paying their wages, brought new players with wages on top of those - and JUST managed to survive. Yea, slightly different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Speaked well in the press conference. "While Man City put on Fernandiho and Negredo, we had to put on 2 academy kids" That says alot of our injury problems doesn't it? This is not even an excuse, this is plain facts. Our squad atm is totally ribbed 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Get rid was maybe incorrect - but he brought in quite a few to replace those deemed not good enough (by him and by the multitude of experts on the forums). So point still stands - he brought in and had to bed quite a few players - so if people demanded instant success then they would and should have been disappointed. There was a change from old overpaid to young and hungry and with an honour of playing and wearing the claret n blue. So as I said - first year I (personally) did not expect instant success - second I hoped (not demanded) for an improvement. There may not have been but I won't hold it against him - never did against other worse managers (Turner, McNeil et all) and some worse players Perhaps he shouldn't have brought so many until he'd managed to get rid of the ones he didn't fancy. That's why the wage bill has actually been increasing under Lambert, instead of going down. Also, if you suggest he has replaced players deemed not good enough - players that mcLeish managed to survive with - and replaced them with supposedly better ones, then why hasn't he managed to do better than what McLeish did with those deemed not good enough? Maybe Lambert should have been able to get something out of these players he couldn't get rid of while their wages were still being paid by the club. McLeish had a team that was settled and been together for more than a few months. I didn't see many complaining about bringing in the players Lambert did at the time - I see everyone is doing so now - hindsight again. McLeish did not bring in young players to add to the team - he brought in highly paid players and experienced and struggled. Different scenario - McLeish had experienced players in the premier league and JUST managed to survive. A little different to Lambert surely. Lambert had the same experienced players McLeish did, chose not to / or wasn't able to get anything out of them, kept paying their wages, brought new players with wages on top of those - and JUST managed to survive. Yea, slightly different. Funny how the fans were all for it at that time and agreed with his policy as fans also stated at the time those experienced players just survived and deemed not good enough. Now it seems the fans were wrong just as much as Lambert. How many complained at the time of Lowton, Bennett, Benteke, Westwood and Delph (not a Lambert signing but given a new lease of life) - not many (apart from those who wrote them off even before they had kicked a ball). Now in hindsight seems everyone was right and the manager wrong. Many complained that Warnock was not good enough nor Dunne or Collins etc and it was good to have young and hungry players. I won't cry if Lambert and Lerner go nor will I cry if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 So now it's the fans fault that they bought in a vision that turned out to be shit? The fans are the least of Villa's problems and they've proved it in the last 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 So now it's the fans fault that they bought in a vision that turned out to be shit? The fans are the least of Villa's problems and they've proved it in the last 2 years. How did ANYONE know that the vision was going to turn out shit? Did you? Did I? did the thousands of others? but seems NOW they did (but not at the time) and I did NOT say it's all the fans fault at all did I? I said the fans were all for the vision but not now where have I blamed the fans? I can say that SOME fans who booed everytime one of the young players made a mistake and got on their backs didn't make things easy for them either. I just mentioned that the fans were all for it then and now in hindsight they are not. This is down to Lambert and the players and Lerner. The fans bought into the vision (it was their choice) and now have turned away(again their choice) - what does that say about SOME fans. I have no problem with fans - no matter what point of view they hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts