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. 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? Not at all, I'm just responding to a briny's point about points gained with Benteke in the team. It wasn't supposed to be some kind of big rebuke to everyone who wants him gone. Yes, I think some have improved. Vlaar, KEA and arguably Westwood all have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 We had a fit world class benteke last year and got 41 points. So the team has progressed. With an unfit/injured Benteke we can get 41 points. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 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) Neither has had to clear out 10/12 players though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 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. 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. Respectfully, if the budget for the coming season is £20M then I'd trust Bruce to spend it and put together a team much more than I trust Lambert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 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. Respectfully, if the budget for the coming season is £20M then I'd trust Bruce to spend it and put together a team much more than I trust Lambert. If you genuinely think you can compare Hughes and Bruce's situation to Lambert's then you're not grasping the situation at villa at all. Bruce also said he wished his sagbo signing turned out as good as benteke. It didn't. Then the chairman gave him money to buy two premier league strikers and pay premiere league wages. We aren't in that bracket anymore. We pay peanuts, and get players who may or may not work out. Fact. Wake up. Edited May 10, 2014 by villan_007 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappy Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 . Also can you honestly say that any of the players he purchased in year 1 have improved in year 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 no-one knew we would struggle as we did until late in the season (if they did then they should be manager and stuff Lambert). There were certainly a few who could see a struggle happening. 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? Not at all, I'm just responding to a briny's point about points gained with Benteke in the team. It wasn't supposed to be some kind of big rebuke to everyone who wants him gone. Yes, I think some have improved. Vlaar, KEA and arguably Westwood all have. Mantis thanks for the response. With regards to the 3 players improving you have mentioned imo, kea hasnt, vlaar is the same, although you could say babysitting baker could be to blame for that. Westwood??!!! Maybe slightly, but not enough to impact our overall performances. But ok i'll concede a little ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 If you genuinely think you can compare Hughes and Bruce's situation to Lambert's then you're not grasping the situation at villa at all.Bruce also said he wished his sagbo signing turned out as good as benteke. It didn't. Then the chairman gave him money to buy two premier league strikers and pay premiere league wages. We aren't in that bracket anymore. We pay peanuts, and get players who may or may not work out. Fact. Wake up. What I think is that these are two managers at a level where they probably would have come to Villa who have proven they can work within tighter financial constraints than Paul Lambert has here, and they have instilled their tactics and footballing philosophy into their teams. Is there a Villa fan who even knows what Paul Lamberts football philosophy is ? At the end of last season, we were playing good attacking football, lambert signed too many unnecessary players and tried to guck them game time, this unsettled the existing players, and pushed us back to a point where we don't even appear to be steam, just 11 individuals running around on a pitch. Under managers like Hughes, Bruce, Pulis at least there is a team spirit and some fight, Villa this season under Lambert have shown nothing. For the record, I don't want Bruce to be Villa manager, I just believe he's proven himself more capable than Lambett on tighter budgets (and nit just at Hull). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 kurtsimonw, but he HAS had to buy an entirely new team! Who is there that we had before that has played all season? Delph Baker and Guzan. That's it really. He hasn't though. How can you say he's had to buy this many players when even with injuries some of his signings can't make the bench? That shows he's spent too much on quantity and not quality. Guzan, Baker, Clark, Delph, Agbonlahor, Weimann have all played a good portion, Albrighton has played over 20 games too I believe. I don't think we'd miss Helenius or Tonev had we not signed them, even with all the injuries we had. Our wage bill is around mid-table, as was the amount of money he was given this season. Going into the 37th week of the season and not being safe is a job failed. I have no idea how i forgot Gabby and Weimann but I still stand by my point. But the sad thing is that going into the 37th week safe IS NOT job failed it is job DONE. That's the sad thing about it, there is no ambition apart from staying in the league. In theory Lambert would have succeeded even if we stayed up in the 95th minute on the 38th week. Whether we like it or not that's the reality. I agree this is OT sorry. The wages his squad is on + money spent on transfers, it's not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 . Also can you honestly say that any of the players he purchased in year 1 have improved in year 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Has he built a better squad than the one he inherited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Has he built a better squad than the one he inherited? He didn't inherit one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 . Also can you honestly say that any of the players he purchased in year 1 have improved in year 2? Come on mate..... the only thing kea is good at is running around like a headless chicken!! Not good enough to wear the shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Has he built a better squad than the one he inherited? Yes. He inherited a squad going on a downward slope and rebuilt it cheaply to a squad with potential to be on an upward slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 . Also can you honestly say that any of the players he purchased in year 1 have improved in year 2? Come on mate..... the only thing kea is good at is running around like a headless chicken!! Not good enough to wear the shirt. Most interceptions in the opponents half in prem league. He breaks up play well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Has he built a better squad than the one he inherited? Yes. He inherited a squad going on a downward slope and rebuilt it cheaply to a squad with potential to be on an upward slope. And this is what I keep getting told. That's he's replaced players with better and that those bombed out weren't good enough either. So if he's built a better squad than McLeish had why is him surviving a success and McLeish a failure? We lose tomorrow and this season is worse than McLeish and with what I'm told is a better squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Has he built a better squad than the one he inherited? Yes. He inherited a squad going on a downward slope and rebuilt it cheaply to a squad with potential to be on an upward slope. And this is what I keep getting told. That's he's replaced players with better and that those bombed out weren't good enough either. So if he's built a better squad than McLeish had why is him surviving a success and McLeish a failure? We lose tomorrow and this season is worse than McLeish and with what I'm told is a better squad. The old pensioners are gone, the young and restless pupils are here. Happy times. Up we go. UTV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Has he built a better squad than the one he inherited? Yes. He inherited a squad going on a downward slope and rebuilt it cheaply to a squad with potential to be on an upward slope. And this is what I keep getting told. That's he's replaced players with better and that those bombed out weren't good enough either. So if he's built a better squad than McLeish had why is him surviving a success and McLeish a failure? We lose tomorrow and this season is worse than McLeish and with what I'm told is a better squad. McLeish did it with a team full of prem league players and wages. Lambert did it on naff all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Has he built a better squad than the one he inherited? Yes. He inherited a squad going on a downward slope and rebuilt it cheaply to a squad with potential to be on an upward slope. But they are not on an upward slope and I see very little potential to improve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts