Popular Post macandally Posted May 10, 2014 Popular Post 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.fans A fractious squad where the senior players allegedly were a bad influence on the younger ones, where club legends were assaulted on a so called team building trip, where journeymen pros were seeing out their careers on bloated wages. Whatever the issues with our on field performances, Lambert gave us a youthful baseline of low cost, low paid players hungry to succeed. Some have taken that chance, others have sadly not, that is the gamble you (or Lambert) take. Another factor to take into consideration when comparing Lambert with Bruce and Pulis, both of those Managers are tactically limited. Lambert has changed styles, formations and tactics to varying degrees of success. Sometimes the players got it, sometimes they or it didnt click. Anyone who has coached young players will sympathise, albeit Lambert is doing it on the biggest stage where his every move and point is scrutinised. Whether he stays or goes I admire his balls, he could have done a McLeish and spunked more money and wages on premier league proven journeyman, he could have done a Pulis and played not to lose and pinch a goal. Would we have enjoyed that football, I doubt it! He has actually tried to give us everything we wanted, a young, hungry side, playing good attacking, passing football, whilst cutting the budget, a huge ask and but for injuries he might have got bloody close. To slag him off the way some do is pure vitriol and your continual bleating on stats are used to mask the fact you havent stopped to consider the enormity of the task WE the fans and Randy presented him with. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I cannot believe that people are still trying to defend Lambert. The guy has signed 17 players, this squad has been assembled by him, been coached under his instruction, the teams for each game are picked by him, the style of football is his ! He's not been forced to play a team he inherited, he has created this team and dictated the way they play. Lambert knew the job he was taking on when he signed his contract, as others have said some managers turned the job down when they realised the budget they'd have at hand was not what would be needed for mid table or better, Lambert accepted the job, and looking at the two years his reulsts simply don't stack up :- Total League Games = 75 Home Wins = 11 Away Wins = 9 Goals for = 86 Goals Against = 127 In what world is that acceptable for Aston Villa ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) ^ While I understand why people want him gone and am on the fence myself, the reason why he is defending by some is that there are many external factors at work as well. It's just not as simple as you're making out. Edited May 10, 2014 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) Another factor to take into consideration when comparing Lambert with Bruce and Pulis, both of those Managers are tactically limited. Lambert has changed styles, formations and tactics to varying degrees of success. Lambert hasn't changed styles much at all, that's why we've been so bad most of the time. And changing formations and not getting results doesn't mean your not tactically limited. Who cares if he changes formation a few times if the result is the same? Whether he stays or goes I admire his balls, he could have done a McLeish and spunked more money and wages on premier league proven journeyman, How can you say this and then later say you havent stopped to consider the enormity of the task WE the fans and Randy presented him with. Either he had constraints or he didn't if he did therefore he couldn't spunk a lot of wages on journeymen footballers. He has actually tried to give us everything we wanted, a young, hungry side, playing good attacking, passing football, whilst cutting the budget, a huge ask and but for injuries he might have got bloody close. Good attacking, passing football? We've barely seen that. Edited May 10, 2014 by Big_John_10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) 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. fans A fractious squad where the senior players allegedly were a bad influence on the younger ones, where club legends were assaulted on a so called team building trip, where journeymen pros were seeing out their careers on bloated wages. Whatever the issues with our on field performances, Lambert gave us a youthful baseline of low cost, low paid players hungry to succeed. Some have taken that chance, others have sadly not, that is the gamble you (or Lambert) take.Another factor to take into consideration when comparing Lambert with Bruce and Pulis, both of those Managers are tactically limited. Lambert has changed styles, formations and tactics to varying degrees of success. Sometimes the players got it, sometimes they or it didnt click. Anyone who has coached young players will sympathise, albeit Lambert is doing it on the biggest stage where his every move and point is scrutinised. Whether he stays or goes I admire his balls, he could have done a McLeish and spunked more money and wages on premier league proven journeyman, he could have done a Pulis and played not to lose and pinch a goal. Would we have enjoyed that football, I doubt it! He has actually tried to give us everything we wanted, a young, hungry side, playing good attacking, passing football, whilst cutting the budget, a huge ask and but for injuries he might have got bloody close. To slag him off the way some do is pure vitriol and your continual bleating on stats are used to mask the fact you havent stopped to consider the enormity of the task WE the fans and Randy presented him with. The bits i have bolded are just laughable. Lambert has no plan B, his plan A is hardly ever good enough, and thats what has seen the team struggle. Taking the game against Fulham as an example, the first half we seemed quite comfortable, Magath changed htings at half time bringing on Dejagah and Rodallega, everyone could see that these two players completely changed the game for Fulham, and yet Lambert waited until after Fulham scored to make a change (bringing on Tonev for Bennett in the 65th minute), when the game was beyond us he then helped Fulham waste some time by bringing on Bowery for Albrighton in the 91st minute...tactical genius ! Villa have not played good attacking football or passing football since the end of the 2012-213 season, Lambert has taken us backwards and our football is archaic as seen by the fact we have used more long balls than any other premier league team. Edited May 10, 2014 by dukes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macandally Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I could waste my time responding but why bother? I suggest you read my post again unless you truly are blinded by your prejudice? In fact, dont bother 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure how you can say I'm blinded and at the same time try to claim we've played good attacking, passing football. There are no stats to back that argument up at all. Edited May 10, 2014 by Big_John_10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I could waste my time responding but why bother? I suggest you read my post again unless you truly are blinded by your prejudice? In fact, dont bother Read your post and the responses, which seem perfectly reasonable. Why bother posting if it touches such a nerve when people try and debate, isn't that what a forum is for? 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. 1 win in 8 games soon to be 1 win in 9 games sounds like a downward slope. So? This is a league 1 team with 3-4 premier league players. Do you expect them to win the Premier League? Aston Villa is exactly where I expect them to be, in the bottom half, but not among the relegated teams because Lambert is a damn good manager, in my opinion. People compare Villa with Hull...Hull bought TWO premier league strikers in Long and Jelavic when they where forced to in January. Lambert could only afford to loan Holt. People say he has used a lot of money...they say he used £40 million, like that is enough to rebuild a premier league squad....they say he bought 17 players, but fail to then mention that the total cost they lambasted him with was only £40million...they say the players should be better, but fail to mention that none of the non- loanees had premier league experience...or even experience from the big leagues. How can a club who can't afford premier league wages compete with those who can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) ^ While I understand why people want him gone and am on the fence myself, the reason why he is defending by some is that there are many external factors at work as well. It's just not as simple as you're making out. You are quite right there are so many external factors.....but there are also tell tale signs on the football field that suggest to me that those same external factors are nothing more than a smoke screen, to some of the football ailments. There are certain elements of our play that has not improved and continues to contribute to defeats things that have clearly not been addressed or improved. He has elements of mitigation that hold little water for me and some things that are wrong are not as a direct result of the components of the difficult task. Edited May 10, 2014 by TRO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onmeedson Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 The problem with being a Yes man is you accept whatever the task that is put before you and any owner worth his salt would never give you money because you will accept terms that any decent guy will walk away from. When the master calls you jump and take whatever he dictates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) If we are sold.....it would take an extraordinary decision to keep him on in the light of the results over the last 2years, even factoring in the enormous task....it would take a brave shout to invest over 200mill and keep the same guy on....it could be said not the best impression to start off with and not much to disrupt to create any retrograde steps.it can' t really get worse....can it? I do like to look a bit deeper than results, but I am always reminded..it's a results business and when a manager chooses to opt for parking the bus as opposed to expansive football, that the line they roll out....it's a results business. Quite frankly, watching the football we have dished out, I am not convinced we are working with a manager that has the foresight or overall coaching ability to take us in the higher echelons of the premier league, despite the promise of enhanced funds. I think the only chance he would have is if he had access to ridiculous amounts of money.....but then we could all claim to do the job on that basis. Edited May 10, 2014 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) 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. 1 win in 8 games soon to be 1 win in 9 games sounds like a downward slope. So? This is a league 1 team with 3-4 premier league players. Do you expect them to win the Premier League? Aston Villa is exactly where I expect them to be, in the bottom half, but not among the relegated teams because Lambert is a damn good manager, in my opinion. People compare Villa with Hull...Hull bought TWO premier league strikers in Long and Jelavic when they where forced to in January. Lambert could only afford to loan Holt. People say he has used a lot of money...they say he used £40 million, like that is enough to rebuild a premier league squad....they say he bought 17 players, but fail to then mention that the total cost they lambasted him with was only £40million...they say the players should be better, but fail to mention that none of the non- loanees had premier league experience...or even experience from the big leagues. How can a club who can't afford premier league wages compete with those who can? I say it will soon be 1 win in 9 and you say "so!" 1 win in 9 is not good enough for Aston Villa football club particularly with some of the tosh that has come before that run. Hull bought two premier league strikers in January. Lambert could have had Benteke, Agbonlahor and Weimann for most of the season (i.e for a longer period) with the option of having Darren Bent as well who he decided to loan out. It could be argued Lambert had better resources but got less out of them. But poor old Lambert could only get Holt (never mind that we had Helenius anyway!) Funny how Stephen Ireland has gone to Stoke and started to find some form again. Some managers can get the best out of what they have got and some can't. Unfortunately we're stuck with one who can't. Then again it has helped that Stoke pass the ball about. Edited May 10, 2014 by Brumstopdogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes 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. 1 win in 8 games soon to be 1 win in 9 games sounds like a downward slope. So? This is a league 1 team with 3-4 premier league players. Do you expect them to win the Premier League? Aston Villa is exactly where I expect them to be, in the bottom half, but not among the relegated teams because Lambert is a damn good manager, in my opinion. People compare Villa with Hull...Hull bought TWO premier league strikers in Long and Jelavic when they where forced to in January. Lambert could only afford to loan Holt. People say he has used a lot of money...they say he used £40 million, like that is enough to rebuild a premier league squad....they say he bought 17 players, but fail to then mention that the total cost they lambasted him with was only £40million...they say the players should be better, but fail to mention that none of the non- loanees had premier league experience...or even experience from the big leagues. How can a club who can't afford premier league wages compete with those who can? I already mentioned similar figures, Steve Bruce has spent £32M in two years at hull including the two strikers you mention. So he has built a premier league squad got less. Mark Hughes signed 7 players for £7M at Stoke. Who decided to sign all these sub-standard lower league players ? Who wasted money on 2left backs and still then had to loan another ? Who spent £7M on a striker that wasn't needed or another £1.2M on another inexperienced striker that he refuses to play ? Lambert bought quantity, he chose that path rather than buying fewer but better quality players, or supplementing purchases with better use of the loan system, perhaps if he'd not signed so many players he wasn't prepared to play he could have signed Barry on loan ? 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. 1 win in 8 games soon to be 1 win in 9 games sounds like a downward slope. So? This is a league 1 team with 3-4 premier league players. Do you expect them to win the Premier League? Aston Villa is exactly where I expect them to be, in the bottom half, but not among the relegated teams because Lambert is a damn good manager, in my opinion. People compare Villa with Hull...Hull bought TWO premier league strikers in Long and Jelavic when they where forced to in January. Lambert could only afford to loan Holt. People say he has used a lot of money...they say he used £40 million, like that is enough to rebuild a premier league squad....they say he bought 17 players, but fail to then mention that the total cost they lambasted him with was only £40million...they say the players should be better, but fail to mention that none of the non- loanees had premier league experience...or even experience from the big leagues. How can a club who can't afford premier league wages compete with those who can? I say it will soon be 1 win in 9 and you say "so!" 1 win in 9 is not good enough for Aston Villa football club particularly with some of the tosh that has come before that run. Hull bought two premier league strikers in January. Lambert could has had Benteke, Agbonlahor and Weimann for most of the season (i.e for a longer period) with the option of having Darren Bent as well who he decided to loan out. It could be argued Lambert had better resources but got less out of them. But poor old Lambert could only get Holt (never mind that we had Helenius anyway!) Funny how Stephen Ireland has gone to Stoke and started to find some form again. Some managers can get the best out of what they have got and some can't. Unfortunately we're stuck with one who can't. Then again it has helped that Stoke pass the ball about. Stephen Ireland is popular now? He has scored 2 goals this season. Westwood has 3, Delph has 3, El Ahmadi has 2. And they offer better work rate. Bent back too? He has scored less then Weimann, less then Agbonlahor, less then Kozak, less then Benteke. If you think game time, even Holt has better statistic. What is the point having these on the payroll if the difference is minimal? Villa was in a good position until Benteke was injured. I can't believe those who lambaste Lambert don't want to acknowledge that the turning point was the injury to Benteke. Without this, you would not have complained, even if you didn't like the football. Only because with Benteke the points tally would have been 5-8 points more. at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Why don't we call them Lambert's Limes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO 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. 1 win in 8 games soon to be 1 win in 9 games sounds like a downward slope. So? This is a league 1 team with 3-4 premier league players. Do you expect them to win the Premier League? Aston Villa is exactly where I expect them to be, in the bottom half, but not among the relegated teams because Lambert is a damn good manager, in my opinion. People compare Villa with Hull...Hull bought TWO premier league strikers in Long and Jelavic when they where forced to in January. Lambert could only afford to loan Holt. People say he has used a lot of money...they say he used £40 million, like that is enough to rebuild a premier league squad....they say he bought 17 players, but fail to then mention that the total cost they lambasted him with was only £40million...they say the players should be better, but fail to mention that none of the non- loanees had premier league experience...or even experience from the big leagues. How can a club who can't afford premier league wages compete with those who can? I say it will soon be 1 win in 9 and you say "so!" 1 win in 9 is not good enough for Aston Villa football club particularly with some of the tosh that has come before that run. Hull bought two premier league strikers in January. Lambert could has had Benteke, Agbonlahor and Weimann for most of the season (i.e for a longer period) with the option of having Darren Bent as well who he decided to loan out. It could be argued Lambert had better resources but got less out of them. But poor old Lambert could only get Holt (never mind that we had Helenius anyway!) Funny how Stephen Ireland has gone to Stoke and started to find some form again. Some managers can get the best out of what they have got and some can't. Unfortunately we're stuck with one who can't. Then again it has helped that Stoke pass the ball about. Stephen Ireland is popular now? He has scored 2 goals this season. Westwood has 3, Delph has 3, El Ahmadi has 2. And they offer better work rate. Bent back too? He has scored less then Weimann, less then Agbonlahor, less then Kozak, less then Benteke. If you think game time, even Holt has better statistic. What is the point having these on the payroll if the difference is minimal? Villa was in a good position until Benteke was injured. I can't believe those who lambaste Lambert don't want to acknowledge that the turning point was the injury to Benteke. Without this, you would not have complained, even if you didn't like the football. Only because with Benteke the points tally would have been 5-8 points more. at least. .....so after 2years in charge... We still rely on one player. This is some building programme. 1 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. 1 win in 8 games soon to be 1 win in 9 games sounds like a downward slope. So? This is a league 1 team with 3-4 premier league players. Do you expect them to win the Premier League? Aston Villa is exactly where I expect them to be, in the bottom half, but not among the relegated teams because Lambert is a damn good manager, in my opinion. People compare Villa with Hull...Hull bought TWO premier league strikers in Long and Jelavic when they where forced to in January. Lambert could only afford to loan Holt. People say he has used a lot of money...they say he used £40 million, like that is enough to rebuild a premier league squad....they say he bought 17 players, but fail to then mention that the total cost they lambasted him with was only £40million...they say the players should be better, but fail to mention that none of the non- loanees had premier league experience...or even experience from the big leagues. How can a club who can't afford premier league wages compete with those who can? I already mentioned similar figures, Steve Bruce has spent £32M in two years at hull including the two strikers you mention. So he has built a premier league squad got less. Mark Hughes signed 7 players for £7M at Stoke. Who decided to sign all these sub-standard lower league players ? Who wasted money on 2left backs and still then had to loan another ? Who spent £7M on a striker that wasn't needed or another £1.2M on another inexperienced striker that he refuses to play ? Lambert bought quantity, he chose that path rather than buying fewer but better quality players, or supplementing purchases with better use of the loan system, perhaps if he'd not signed so many players he wasn't prepared to play he could have signed Barry on loan ? Stoke did not need to rebuild. Hull City are like Villa when it comes to the player's experience. And they are one point below Villa. Without Long and Jelavic, they might have been relegated. And they spent close to £30M this season not over 2 seasons. I can go through Steve Bruce's signings. Which one of his bad signings do you want? Danny Graham? Yannick Sagbo? Two strikers he replaced with two other strikers in January. 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. 1 win in 8 games soon to be 1 win in 9 games sounds like a downward slope. So? This is a league 1 team with 3-4 premier league players. Do you expect them to win the Premier League? Aston Villa is exactly where I expect them to be, in the bottom half, but not among the relegated teams because Lambert is a damn good manager, in my opinion. People compare Villa with Hull...Hull bought TWO premier league strikers in Long and Jelavic when they where forced to in January. Lambert could only afford to loan Holt. People say he has used a lot of money...they say he used £40 million, like that is enough to rebuild a premier league squad....they say he bought 17 players, but fail to then mention that the total cost they lambasted him with was only £40million...they say the players should be better, but fail to mention that none of the non- loanees had premier league experience...or even experience from the big leagues. How can a club who can't afford premier league wages compete with those who can? I say it will soon be 1 win in 9 and you say "so!" 1 win in 9 is not good enough for Aston Villa football club particularly with some of the tosh that has come before that run. Hull bought two premier league strikers in January. Lambert could has had Benteke, Agbonlahor and Weimann for most of the season (i.e for a longer period) with the option of having Darren Bent as well who he decided to loan out. It could be argued Lambert had better resources but got less out of them. But poor old Lambert could only get Holt (never mind that we had Helenius anyway!) Funny how Stephen Ireland has gone to Stoke and started to find some form again. Some managers can get the best out of what they have got and some can't. Unfortunately we're stuck with one who can't. Then again it has helped that Stoke pass the ball about. Stephen Ireland is popular now? He has scored 2 goals this season. Westwood has 3, Delph has 3, El Ahmadi has 2. And they offer better work rate. Bent back too? He has scored less then Weimann, less then Agbonlahor, less then Kozak, less then Benteke. If you think game time, even Holt has better statistic. What is the point having these on the payroll if the difference is minimal? Villa was in a good position until Benteke was injured. I can't believe those who lambaste Lambert don't want to acknowledge that the turning point was the injury to Benteke. Without this, you would not have complained, even if you didn't like the football. Only because with Benteke the points tally would have been 5-8 points more. at least. .....so after 2years in charge... We still rely on one player. This is some building programme. Do you think West Ham without Carroll would have been relegated? Until his return they were down there. Do you think Liverpool without Suarez would be fighting for the championship? No! His goals and penalties gained got them up there. Look at Barcelona without Messi injured/out of form this season...they were ordinary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I make the decision based on what I have seen and witnessed over 2 seasons with my own eyes. Dyer football, mixed up tactics, hoofball, manager with zero plan B. All the fans who are still supporting Lambert seem to be basing there decisions/opinions on speculation. Injuries have been the issue. He had no budget. Couldn't keep any of the bomb squad. We couldn't beat Man City. he's done a fantastic job????? Facts please facts, where are they!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts