Paul Lambert

[DCJonah]

I did expect him to be a big improvement on McLeish, sadly he hasnt been and that is saying something.

When Lambert joined I can't imagine anyone thinking that to be as bad as McLeish going half way into his 3rd season would be acceptable.

[foreveryoung]

As someone who desperately wanted Lambert and backed him heavily until the back end of last season I think the question I had to ask myself was how bad would things have to get before I changed my opinion and thought a change was necessary. That point of I don’t want it to get any worse than this came for me at the end of last season I guess.

 

However I have to say when it became clear over the summer that he was staying, added to him improving the squad both in terms of signings and the reintroduction of Hutton, NZogbia, Bent and Given, giving us the experience we clearly lacked and the good start we had to the season, gave me some renewed hope that my original feeling on Lambert may yet be proved right.

 

I think the fact we had a relatively positive summer and a good start now make the fact we have dipped so alarmingly even worse. If Lambert hasn't been able to feed of that positivity, and he clearly hasn't given our results and dire performances, then that to me shows another flaw in his managerial qualities.

 

Not one fan I know expects anything exceptional from Lambert and expectations are to me now at an all-time low. I have certainly lowered mine but for me given this squad, which I think is the best we have had in  3–4 years, and a manager that has been in place 2 and a half years then I believe a realistic expectation would be for us to stay out of any threat of relegation and play some half decent football along the way.

 

Despite mitigating circumstances in terms of not being blessed with the greatest of funds what I can’t accept is yet another long run of poor results, dire performances and a total lack of direction in terms of how we set up and try to play. We have absolutely no idea what we are doing when we have the ball. It is 3 or 4 sideways passes, lack of movement up top, back to a centre back or Guzan then a long punt up front and a gift of possession back to the opposition. This has been pretty much the pattern for all but the early part of Lambert's reign when we were a little more gung ho. Our style of play could maybe be forgiven if we were talking about a manager that had been in place for a few months but this is a guy that has had 2 and a half years which should be sufficient time to at least implement some kind of organisation and direction to our play. We are though no further forward in terms of how we play than the day he arrived.

 

Progress has been made in terms of signings and full credit to Lambert for that because given what he has had to spend he has assembled a decent squad. However that sadly becomes pretty much redundant because he is failing to get the best out of them.

 

I again now ask myself the question how much worse would it have to get before wanting a change in manager and the only thing worse than dire performances and battling against relegation is dire performances culminating in relegation itself. If we wait until that point then it is too late so now is the time for a change.

 

Good post Mark. I agree with much of it, but not all of it.

 

Specifically, yes we've had a terrible run of results, but you have to look at who we've played. It's not only that we've faced them, but that it's been back-to-back. It's very hard to maintain energy levels, both physical and mental, for so many games like that on the trot - let alone all important confidence. Everton and QPR have been the major disappointments for me, Liverpool obviously the big plus.

 

However, given that we have some decent games now through to the new year, surely you're willing to see if we really have improved by giving Lambert a chance to go and win some of these fixtures? I agree with you that our squad is OK now (and that Lambert has done well to assemble it on a small budget). Of course there is concomitant pressure associated with that. Performances and results have to improve now. If we are still in 15th/16th or below at the turn of the year, I'll be calling for the mangers head too. But surely he deserves that chance?

And so we win a couple of easy games, is that now the master plan after 2.5 seasons. It won't change a thing, its gone to far to change under Lambert!

[Condimentalist]

 

But surely he deserves that chance

Our results and performances over the last 12 months would suggest he doesn't.

Why do you think surely he deserves the chance? Our awful form has been going on a lot longer than just the last 7 games. I haven't seen anything that makes me think yes this man deserves a chance.

 

 

Because I don't think he has under-performed particularly in the two years previous. It hasn't been pretty for much of the time, but I hold Lerner chiefly responsible for that. I think many managers would have taken us down. And what's the point in sacking him now? You may as well have got rid of him in the summer. I think most sensible people would have thought we would be in the bottom 6 at this point having looked at the fixtures. We are, it's been ugly, but let's see if we can kick on. Like I say, I think the squad is better now, and we showed some signs of improvement in the early games,  so I would hope that we can. If not, time to go. 

[markavfc40]

 

Good post Mark. I agree with much of it, but not all of it.

 

Specifically, yes we've had a terrible run of results, but you have to look at who we've played. It's not only that we've faced them, but that it's been back-to-back. It's very hard to maintain energy levels, both physical and mental, for so many games like that on the trot - let alone all important confidence. Everton and QPR have been the major disappointments for me, Liverpool obviously the big plus.

 

However, given that we have some decent games now through to the new year, surely you're willing to see if we really have improved by giving Lambert a chance to go and win some of these fixtures? I agree with you that our squad is OK now (and that Lambert has done well to assemble it on a small budget). Of course there is concomitant pressure associated with that. Performances and results have to improve now. If we are still in 15th/16th or below at the turn of the year, I'll be calling for the mangers head too. But surely he deserves that chance?

 

 

I agree that we have had a tough run of fixtures but I don't think you can look at them in isolation. We made a very good start to the season and the momentum gained in those fixtures should have stood us in decent stead for that upcoming tough run. The opposite happened though and we now find ourselves with just one point from 21. Surely the manager should have been able to ensure we fed off that decent start and what you would imagine the confidence gained from it and ensured we made a decent fist of the following fixtures. We didn't though and in almost all the games as soon as going a goal down folded. There was simply no belief that we could come back after going behind and surely the manager has to take responsibility for that lack of belief.

 

As for the upcoming fixtures I am assume this easier run of fixtures doesn't include our next outing against second place Southampton at home and is the following games against Burnley, Palace and West Brom away and Leicester at home?

I have two issues with giving Lambert another chance. Firstly I have no evidence to suggest we will come good in this so called easier run of fixtures. Lets be kind and assume we get a draw against Southampton that will then be 8 games without a win and we will be a team under pressure with a manager getting stick from the fans. The last time Lambert and his team found themselves in that predicament with what was considered an easier run of fixtures was the arse end of last season when we faced Fulham, Southampton and Hull at home and Palace and Swansea away. From that run we took just 4 points and served up some diabolical football.

Secondly rather than stick with someone who has had 2 and a half years to improve results and performances and made zero progress in neither why not just let a new incoming manager have these so called easier fixtures and allow him the chance to really hit the ground running. The risk to me now is keeping Lambert for this so called easier run as once those fixtures have gone we could be in really deep shit and you can't get those fixtures back.

If I could see even a smidgen of improvement since Lambert arrived in our performances then I'd happily give him a chance. I see nothing though and the results simply back that up. You would struggle to find any fan who invested more faith in Lambert than me and subsequently anyone who is more disappointed with how things have turned out. I genuinely hate having to make posts like this but I can't hide from what is staring me in the face. As long as he remains manager though nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see him turn things around and I can have my words rammed firmly down my throat.

Edited November 11, 2014 by markavfc40

[CrackpotForeigner]

One thing I would really like to know is what, if anything, PL is doing about our tendency to sit on a goal lead.

 

Although we're labeled a counterattacking side, we always look far less likely to concede when we're trying to get a goal rather than trying to stop one going in.

 

It would help if we had a proper threat to come off the bench (I'm sure Lambert would be delighted to have a better option than DB, even though DB has done no worse than anyone else when brought on).

 

I can't believe Lambert would say anything like "If you hopeless nincompoops somehow fluke a goal, for god's sake sit back for the rest of the match." He must surely be encouraging them to go for a second, but that doesn't seem to be happening, ever.

[Dodgyknees]

A thought. Could a CEO leave because he wanted a manager gone, only to be told 'no chance' by the chairman?

[darrenm]

I'll reply to the polite requests above asking for clarification on my post a bit later when I have time, but just to answer Crackpot's post above:

 

I think Lambert's major fault is playing under O'Neill and seeing his way of managing work. Letting simplicity rule and letting the players express themselves in their own way, rather than overcomplicating things, worked wonders when he had top players at Celtic, players who could drag a game out on their own (Ashley Young, John Carew on their day), or having absolutely no pressure or expectation on them (Leicester, newly promoted Norwich).

 

In our position we have pressure on the players playing for a club which is always being told it's below par for its heritage, and they're not world beaters. So no matter how many times Lambert can reassure himself that he's only doing the same stuff that O'Neill and Hitzfeld did, and that eventually it'll come good, he has to hand hold the players a bit more.

[DelboyVilla]

Mark spot on again but our main problem is we have an owner who takes very little interest in the club and is not exactly known for being descive when it comes to making the difficult calls.

 

You're right Lambert seems unable to get a reaction from the team and looks totally lost on the sidelines watching the same old mistakes being made time and time again. Southampton, Burnley, Palace, the Boggies and Leicester will all think they can pick up points against us and I doubt any of them will be seeing us as anything other than a push over if they get amongst us.

 

We desparately need a change of mindset in the club to just keep saying 'we go again' is not working as a mantra!

[DelboyVilla]

I'll reply to the polite requests above asking for clarification on my post a bit later when I have time, but just to answer Crackpot's post above:

 

I think Lambert's major fault is playing under O'Neill and seeing his way of managing work. Letting simplicity rule and letting the players express themselves in their own way, rather than overcomplicating things, worked wonders when he had top players at Celtic, players who could drag a game out on their own (Ashley Young, John Carew on their day), or having absolutely no pressure or expectation on them (Leicester, newly promoted Norwich).

 

In our position we have pressure on the players playing for a club which is always being told it's below par for its heritage, and they're not world beaters. So no matter how many times Lambert can reassure himself that he's only doing the same stuff that O'Neill and Hitzfeld did, and that eventually it'll come good, he has to hand hold the players a bit more.

 

 

 

I should have known it was all MON's fault???

 

FFS!!

[CrackpotForeigner]

I'll reply to the polite requests above asking for clarification on my post a bit later when I have time, but just to answer Crackpot's post above:

 

I think Lambert's major fault is playing under O'Neill and seeing his way of managing work. Letting simplicity rule and letting the players express themselves in their own way, rather than overcomplicating things, worked wonders when he had top players at Celtic, players who could drag a game out on their own (Ashley Young, John Carew on their day), or having absolutely no pressure or expectation on them (Leicester, newly promoted Norwich).

 

In our position we have pressure on the players playing for a club which is always being told it's below par for its heritage, and they're not world beaters. So no matter how many times Lambert can reassure himself that he's only doing the same stuff that O'Neill and Hitzfeld did, and that eventually it'll come good, he has to hand hold the players a bit more.

 

I was thinking exactly this the other day, more with regard to Hitzfeld than MON, but yeah, the has to be a big difference between the managerial needs of this Villa squad and Hitzfeld's Dortmund. Lambert seems to have a determinedly cool head, and he makes no secret of having been inspired by MON and OH, but maybe some of the villa players could do with a bit of a kick in the arse - something few players in more expensively-assembled squads are likely to need.

[bobzy]

 

 

Good post Mark. I agree with much of it, but not all of it.

 

Specifically, yes we've had a terrible run of results, but you have to look at who we've played. It's not only that we've faced them, but that it's been back-to-back. It's very hard to maintain energy levels, both physical and mental, for so many games like that on the trot - let alone all important confidence. Everton and QPR have been the major disappointments for me, Liverpool obviously the big plus.

 

However, given that we have some decent games now through to the new year, surely you're willing to see if we really have improved by giving Lambert a chance to go and win some of these fixtures? I agree with you that our squad is OK now (and that Lambert has done well to assemble it on a small budget). Of course there is concomitant pressure associated with that. Performances and results have to improve now. If we are still in 15th/16th or below at the turn of the year, I'll be calling for the mangers head too. But surely he deserves that chance?

 

 

I agree that we have had a tough run of fixtures but I don't think you can look at them in isolation. We made a very good start to the season and the momentum gained in those fixtures should have stood us in decent stead for that upcoming tough run. The opposite happened though and we now find ourselves with just one point from 21. Surely the manager should have been able to ensure we fed off that decent start and what you would imagine the confidence gained from it and ensured we made a decent fist of the following fixtures. We didn't though and in almost all the games as soon as going a goal down folded. There was simply no belief that we could come back after going behind and surely the manager has to take responsibility for that lack of belief.

 

 

 

I think he did, to be honest.  After our decent start, we beat Liverpool 1-0 and started well against Arsenal before conceeding 3 in quick succession (more defensive errors than poor tactics/managerial influence).  We were never going to get anything out of Chelsea and Man City, but that seemed to knock confidence and we were awful against Everton.

 

Personally, I didn't think we were too bad against Q.P.R (bar the individual defensive mistakes, again), or Spurs, or West Ham - but, aside from Benteke until he saw red, we look toothless.  This is the major problem(!).  Fair enough to lay blame on Lambert for that because it's been an issue that he hasn't addressed, outside of signing Benteke.

[DCJonah]

Because I don't think he has under-performed particularly in the two years previous

That's fair enough and I guess thats the main difference between the two set of opinions. I think he has under performed. I think the failure to kick on from the end of his first season is the biggest reason for me.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Proper "teeth" are very expensive though, especially if you pay for someone with an established reputation, which is preferable for psychological reasons.

[darrenm]

 

 

Are performances good enough? Don't care. What's a performance?

Do we look like scoring enough goals? Sometimes

Are we at least entertaining? Don't care. What's entertaining?

Do our tactics point at a long term game plan with improvement likely? Yes

 

Re the what's a performance and what's entertaining - if you're a football fan and you genuinely don't know the answer to those questions, I don't know what to tell you

 

Re: looking like scoring enough goals sometimes... when exactly?

 

And re: tactics making it look likely that we'll improve, what are you seeing there exactly? I'm curious about that one, because I'm just seeing the same panicky stuff from the manager over and over. There was a period, a while ago, where we got the ball on the floor for a good bit of every game, but the old reliable lack of movement pretty much killed any usefulness there time and again sadly

 

 

Hmm, please afford me the benefit of the doubt with the bit about performance and entertaining. You're assuming I don't know what other people _think_ it is, but I don't think anyone actually knows. Think past common knowledge and into what actually makes entertaining football. I'd say the most entertaining stuff is when we're 2-1 down trying to get a goal in the last 10 mins. Or if we're trying to hang on to a win. That's entertainment. Most people seem to trot out some tired rhetoric about lots of passing thinking that just because Barcelona do it and win lots of games, it makes it entertaining football. It doesn't. It makes boring football.

 

As for a performance, again, I'd say most football fans without really thinking would say that absolutely thrashing some team 5-0 is a great performance. I'd say it's no better than beating that same team 1-0 when they're playing better. The 3-2 win over Southampton last season was a fantastic performance. It was effective and it won us the game but it produced 35% possession for us. So effective football != a performance. Stoke punched above their weight for years by using long throws and long balls. Ask anyone if most of their games were good performances for Stoke, but obviously if they won or drew against similar or lower opposition then it has to be a good performance surely?

 

Looking like scoring enough goals - we created plenty of chances against QPR and Spurs. In fact we absolutely dominated the game against QPR and were just very wasteful. That's the bit that galls me the most, we waste so many opportunities that other teams are clinical with.

 

 

 

My answers to those questions

 

Are results good enough? No

Are performances good enough? Don't care. What's a performance?

Do we look like scoring enough goals? Sometimes

Are we at least entertaining? Don't care. What's entertaining?

Has the manager done well in the transfer market with the resources available? Yes

Is our squad stronger than it was when he inherited it? Yes

Is he getting the most out of the players? Maybe. Debatable

Do our tactics point at a long term game plan with improvement likely? Yes

Have there been mitigating circumstances for the manager to work under? Yes

Taking those mitigating circumstances into consideration, has the manager been performing a satisfactory job overall in terms of results, performances, future potential under his guidance and signings? Yes

 

 

Can you expand a bit on the bolded please?

 

Can you explain how our tactics work in relation to long term planning and where improvement is coming from?

 

Performance is quite simply how competitive we are. If you watched our games but didn't see the score and left the room for each goal, what would your guess be as to the result? I know ultimately goals are goals and points are points and it doesn't really matter how you get them, but playing good football is ultimately more likely to get us points and goals. Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring that is fine I guess if we've got a longball anti-football manager who's only job is to keep us up, but that's not where we are as a club and that's not the sort of manager Lambert is supposed to be.

 

 

I think Lambert's tactics are to improve cheap players with potential to the point where they're good enough for us at that particular time and then we can upgrade on them or they get better with us, until we end up with a team of decent players. That's long term improvement. If you mean in game tactics, I honestly think far more is made out of tactics than is actually there. It's a game of chess exploiting your opposition's weaknesses and enhancing your strengths. I don't know enough about premier league level tactics to know anything more than we're not horribly exposed in certain areas so I know he's got the shape right each week. Anything more than that I believe is almost all down to the abilities of the players, and their potential for mistakes, which seems to be a particular forte of ours.

 

Fair point about the performances but see my point of view above. Perhaps if the longball anti-football is more effective, then he's not the manager we want, but the manager we need?

 

 

I'll reply to the polite requests above asking for clarification on my post a bit later when I have time, but just to answer Crackpot's post above:

 

I think Lambert's major fault is playing under O'Neill and seeing his way of managing work. Letting simplicity rule and letting the players express themselves in their own way, rather than overcomplicating things, worked wonders when he had top players at Celtic, players who could drag a game out on their own (Ashley Young, John Carew on their day), or having absolutely no pressure or expectation on them (Leicester, newly promoted Norwich).

 

In our position we have pressure on the players playing for a club which is always being told it's below par for its heritage, and they're not world beaters. So no matter how many times Lambert can reassure himself that he's only doing the same stuff that O'Neill and Hitzfeld did, and that eventually it'll come good, he has to hand hold the players a bit more.

 

 

 

I should have known it was all MON's fault???

 

FFS!!

 

 

Way to go, champ.

Edited November 11, 2014 by darrenm

[bobzy]

Proper "teeth" are very expensive though, especially if you pay for someone with an established reputation, which is preferable for psychological reasons.

 

Yes, of course.  Good players cost money - always going to be the case on the whole.  You might find some cheap gems but, generally, you're paying dolla.

 

I think the thing that is most frustrating for fans (and I know people bang on about "unwanted records" etc. etc.) is the standard of football being played - or, rather, the fact that it isn't attractive or particularly entertaining in an attacking regard.  I don't really know what people expect from Lambert/Villa given that our owner simply isn't backing us that much financially; but I think that just staying up whilst playing entertaining football would be sufficient for "most" fans.

[darrenm]

 

but I think that just staying up whilst playing entertaining football would be sufficient for "most" fans.

 

 

Repeating myself a bit but I don't think a lot of fans know what they want with regards to entertaining football.

 

At a match, if we are playing with a bit of confidence, they're spreading it around nicely, building up and keeping possession, there inevitably comes a time where you have to turn and go backwards. At that exact point half of the stadium starts jeering about 'getting it forward' and '**** hell' because from a promising position we've been forced all the way back to the keeper.

 

So when a defender has the option of either playing a slightly risky pass back into midfield while under pressure, or going 'safe' by just hoofing it up, they're always going to choose the latter when most fans applaud them for doing so.

 

So fans say they want good quality possession, but actually want long ball kick and rush. Or least they reward the players for playing that way.

[AntrimBlack]

Lambert is going nowhere, and I do not think he is up to the job.

This thread depresses me.

[pacbuddies]

One thing I would really like to know is what, if anything, PL is doing about our tendency to sit on a goal lead.

 

Although we're labeled a counterattacking side, we always look far less likely to concede when we're trying to get a goal rather than trying to stop one going in.

 

It would help if we had a proper threat to come off the bench (I'm sure Lambert would be delighted to have a better option than DB, even though DB has done no worse than anyone else when brought on).

 

I can't believe Lambert would say anything like "If you hopeless nincompoops somehow fluke a goal, for god's sake sit back for the rest of the match." He must surely be encouraging them to go for a second, but that doesn't seem to be happening, ever.

If only!

Edited November 11, 2014 by pacbuddies

[DCJonah]

The 3-2 win over Southampton last season was a fantastic performance. It was effective and it won us the game but it produced 35% possession for us. So effective football != a performance

I disagree with most of what you usually say and that post is no different.

You say you don't care about performances but then start to argue about effective results being a good performance. So do you not care about effective results? And how many effective results have we achieved over the past 2 and a half seasons?

Edited November 11, 2014 by DCJonah

[DCJonah]

but I think that just staying up whilst playing entertaining football would be sufficient for "most" fans.

Repeating myself a bit but I don't think a lot of fans know what they want with regards to entertaining football.

At a match, if we are playing with a bit of confidence, they're spreading it around nicely, building up and keeping possession, there inevitably comes a time where you have to turn and go backwards. At that exact point half of the stadium starts jeering about 'getting it forward' and '**** hell' because from a promising position we've been forced all the way back to the keeper.

So when a defender has the option of either playing a slightly risky pass back into midfield while under pressure, or going 'safe' by just hoofing it up, they're always going to choose the latter when most fans applaud them for doing so.

So fans say they want good quality possession, but actually want long ball kick and rush. Or least they reward the players for playing that way.

How come the odd few who keep defending Lambert act like they understand football better than the rest of us?