Condimentalist Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Someone else said it a while back. If Lambert had more money we'd just have better players under performing. He's shown nothing to make me think spending more money would see big improvement. Have our players underperformed? Have Delph, Vlaar, Benteke, Guzan underperformed? Westwood? I don't think so. The players themselves have played to their best a lot of the time, unfortunately there have always been gaping holes in the side, and a lot of players just aren't very good - especially (but not exclusively) the ones Lambert inherited. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Sorry if people think using the issue of money is a poor excuse. Trouble is that is what the game is about these days , those with it and those without it. Those with it can buy the better players and be more successful. Those without it cant It's not that simple, otherwise the premier league table would just match the amount of money spent by each club on transfers and wages. There's a group of middle-ranking clubs where performance is also influenced strongly by the way the club is run and the squad and team are managed. The relative success this season of Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and West Ham demonstrates this. There was an interesting article in the Guardian about this last week: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/nov/10/good-housekeeping-premier-league-high-flyers Basically saying the important factors are a well-stocked and settled defence, lower expectations so less pressure on the players, and well-run club, youth, scouting and management set-ups. Got a feeling we fall short on all these counts and some are absolutely down to the manager. The way the club is run and the ethos employed is definitely important. The interesting things with the clubs mentioned are that they've had to struggle back from somewhere bleak on the whole. Southampton and Swansea were both financially stricken and West Ham were relegated having overspent. With Stoke, they've had to struggle in the bleakness of Stoke . But yes, if you're a well run club operating sensibly on turnover:wages, you have a better chance of doing well. Southampton's current form is nothing short of remarkable, mind, and a lot of credit has to go to both Pochettino and, moreso, Koeman who has come in and had to, essentially, re-vamp his first team. The club are run well, though, and that's where the money aspect comes into it. They've re-couped huge fees but been able to put the vast majority of those straight back into the playing staff. That said, there's no way they "should be" 2nd in the table. I still think that, given the end of the season, we'll see a league table that essentially reflects position in league = amount spent on playing staff. The middle bit is the most volatile and is looks as if Southampton are escaping it - very quickly at that, too. Plus when you look at Swansea who have changed managers every season for the past 3 years they have never changed their style of play from the passing game. Every appointment Lerner has made no thought has been given to the manager style of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 You missed the point though Richard. A good manager gets the players together as a team and raises the performance levels of the poorer players to the leval of the better ones. Lambert is the opposite and lowers better players down to the level of the poor players. He is the High Priest of Anti-Football with many duped into following him and believing his evil sermons. Even McLeish looks up and admires his powers at making weak minded people believe that dire unentertaining turgid football is all that we can expect and deserve. He is wrong, his message is wrong and his work is evil. We need a footballing exorcism now! Some fans will need counselling but they will again be able to watch us play and attack the opposition and even see our players scoring goals and winning games. We need a revolt and we need to start returning those tricked into this cult back to the religion of the Aston Villa and stay away from the Altar of Anti-Football! Please remember that whatever money, however small in comparrison to some, Lambert has had he has never improved the performance on the pitch! Thanks No problem anytime. Sometimes people need to hear the no pulled punches harsh reality. It's called tough love? How old are you? About 40 years older than your usual type? Or you could just answer the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Sorry if people think using the issue of money is a poor excuse. Trouble is that is what the game is about these days , those with it and those without it. Those with it can buy the better players and be more successful. Those without it cant It's not that simple, otherwise the premier league table would just match the amount of money spent by each club on transfers and wages. There's a group of middle-ranking clubs where performance is also influenced strongly by the way the club is run and the squad and team are managed. The relative success this season of Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and West Ham demonstrates this. There was an interesting article in the Guardian about this last week: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/nov/10/good-housekeeping-premier-league-high-flyers Basically saying the important factors are a well-stocked and settled defence, lower expectations so less pressure on the players, and well-run club, youth, scouting and management set-ups. Got a feeling we fall short on all these counts and some are absolutely down to the manager. The way the club is run and the ethos employed is definitely important. The interesting things with the clubs mentioned are that they've had to struggle back from somewhere bleak on the whole. Southampton and Swansea were both financially stricken and West Ham were relegated having overspent. With Stoke, they've had to struggle in the bleakness of Stoke . But yes, if you're a well run club operating sensibly on turnover:wages, you have a better chance of doing well. Southampton's current form is nothing short of remarkable, mind, and a lot of credit has to go to both Pochettino and, moreso, Koeman who has come in and had to, essentially, re-vamp his first team. The club are run well, though, and that's where the money aspect comes into it. They've re-couped huge fees but been able to put the vast majority of those straight back into the playing staff. That said, there's no way they "should be" 2nd in the table. I still think that, given the end of the season, we'll see a league table that essentially reflects position in league = amount spent on playing staff. The middle bit is the most volatile and is looks as if Southampton are escaping it - very quickly at that, too. Plus when you look at Swansea who have changed managers every season for the past 3 years they have never changed their style of play from the passing game. Every appointment Lerner has made no thought has been given to the manager style of play. Houllier & McCallister did try and change it to be fair, would have liked us to carry on that way the season after but then Lerner appointed McLeish 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Again, yes position will over time broadly equate to wages etc. But entertainment flair and positive football bear absolutely no relation to money. There is no reason to play so negatively against at least 10-12 of our competitors. A manager can't do much about the wages, and if that was all that impacted on the play why do we need to keep lambo, or even have a manager at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Sorry if people think using the issue of money is a poor excuse. Trouble is that is what the game is about these days , those with it and those without it. Those with it can buy the better players and be more successful. Those without it cant It's not that simple, otherwise the premier league table would just match the amount of money spent by each club on transfers and wages. There's a group of middle-ranking clubs where performance is also influenced strongly by the way the club is run and the squad and team are managed. The relative success this season of Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and West Ham demonstrates this. There was an interesting article in the Guardian about this last week: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/nov/10/good-housekeeping-premier-league-high-flyers Basically saying the important factors are a well-stocked and settled defence, lower expectations so less pressure on the players, and well-run club, youth, scouting and management set-ups. Got a feeling we fall short on all these counts and some are absolutely down to the manager. The way the club is run and the ethos employed is definitely important. The interesting things with the clubs mentioned are that they've had to struggle back from somewhere bleak on the whole. Southampton and Swansea were both financially stricken and West Ham were relegated having overspent. With Stoke, they've had to struggle in the bleakness of Stoke . But yes, if you're a well run club operating sensibly on turnover:wages, you have a better chance of doing well. Southampton's current form is nothing short of remarkable, mind, and a lot of credit has to go to both Pochettino and, moreso, Koeman who has come in and had to, essentially, re-vamp his first team. The club are run well, though, and that's where the money aspect comes into it. They've re-couped huge fees but been able to put the vast majority of those straight back into the playing staff. That said, there's no way they "should be" 2nd in the table. I still think that, given the end of the season, we'll see a league table that essentially reflects position in league = amount spent on playing staff. The middle bit is the most volatile and is looks as if Southampton are escaping it - very quickly at that, too. Plus when you look at Swansea who have changed managers every season for the past 3 years they have never changed their style of play from the passing game. Every appointment Lerner has made no thought has been given to the manager style of play. Houllier & McCallister did try and change it to be fair, would have liked us to carry on that way the season after but then Lerner appointed McLeish But they went about it in completely the wrong way and it nearly relegated us. It wasn't until they reverted to playing the same side and system as MON that we actually won a few games and got to safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 If its all about money spent and this is why we can't blame Lambert, I take it if we did have new owners who gave more money to Lambert he'd then get none of the credit if we started to do well? I have a feeling the same people using money to deflect him of any blame would be the first ones praising him if he succeeded with more being spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallheathLions Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Lambert will never do any good with us, he may win the odd game but he is totally negative so we will always be chasing the game. All we are doing by retaining his services is prolonging the agony for everyone, it is like a slow death. We have to address it immediately, if the board don't bring about change then the supporters have to be united and hound this guy out of our club. I will support the 11 guys on the field for 90 plus minutes but I will not support Lambert he should be no where near B6. Monday night probably our smallest attendance of the season (the board must be happy to have a manager who has managed to get rid of so many customers) lets do our best to support ASTON VILLA FC but if things end up as the same with dour defensive football give Lambert almighty hell at the end of the game. Villa till I die but so sad that this guy has control of our playing staff. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Someone else said it a while back. If Lambert had more money we'd just have better players under performing. He's shown nothing to make me think spending more money would see big improvement. Have our players underperformed? Have Delph, Vlaar, Benteke, Guzan underperformed? Westwood? I don't think so. The players themselves have played to their best a lot of the time, unfortunately there have always been gaping holes in the side, and a lot of players just aren't very good - especially (but not exclusively) the ones Lambert inherited. Or... No matter how hard the players try, the tactics they are set up with are god damn awful. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Sorry if people think using the issue of money is a poor excuse. Trouble is that is what the game is about these days , those with it and those without it. Those with it can buy the better players and be more successful. Those without it cant It's not that simple, otherwise the premier league table would just match the amount of money spent by each club on transfers and wages. There's a group of middle-ranking clubs where performance is also influenced strongly by the way the club is run and the squad and team are managed. The relative success this season of Southampton, Swansea, Stoke and West Ham demonstrates this. There was an interesting article in the Guardian about this last week: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/nov/10/good-housekeeping-premier-league-high-flyers Basically saying the important factors are a well-stocked and settled defence, lower expectations so less pressure on the players, and well-run club, youth, scouting and management set-ups. Got a feeling we fall short on all these counts and some are absolutely down to the manager. The way the club is run and the ethos employed is definitely important. The interesting things with the clubs mentioned are that they've had to struggle back from somewhere bleak on the whole. Southampton and Swansea were both financially stricken and West Ham were relegated having overspent. With Stoke, they've had to struggle in the bleakness of Stoke . But yes, if you're a well run club operating sensibly on turnover:wages, you have a better chance of doing well. Southampton's current form is nothing short of remarkable, mind, and a lot of credit has to go to both Pochettino and, moreso, Koeman who has come in and had to, essentially, re-vamp his first team. The club are run well, though, and that's where the money aspect comes into it. They've re-couped huge fees but been able to put the vast majority of those straight back into the playing staff. That said, there's no way they "should be" 2nd in the table. I still think that, given the end of the season, we'll see a league table that essentially reflects position in league = amount spent on playing staff. The middle bit is the most volatile and is looks as if Southampton are escaping it - very quickly at that, too. Plus when you look at Swansea who have changed managers every season for the past 3 years they have never changed their style of play from the passing game. Every appointment Lerner has made no thought has been given to the manager style of play. I am inclined to disagree. I think Lambert plays similar dross to McLeish so maybe some thought did go into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 DelboyVilla - wind your neck in mate, some people might want to still use this site to have reasoned, logical, friendly debate. If you can't handle that then please leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Lambert will never do any good with us, he may win the odd game but he is totally negative so we will always be chasing the game. I'm not inclined to right him off as "never do any good for us" because until he is given better funding, its impossible to say. He doesn't help himself with using he's limited funds to buy shit wingbacks and holding midfielders, when you look at some of the players he's tried to bring in (sissokho, belhanda, popov) id say he knows where our main problem lies, but unless he gets given more scope on the wages these deals will always fail to go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 ??? Must have missed what DelboyVilla said that warrants banning him from the site. When you look at what Koeman has done at Southampton in the most desperate of circumstances, it puts us and our manager to shame IMO, although he does have a more clued-up chairman to support him I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 ??? Must have missed what DelboyVilla said that warrants banning him from the site. If that was aimed at me I never said anything of the sort. I do however feel that the kinds of personal insults thrown by him a page back should not be welcomed here. If that's the kind of debate you want to have then fair play, but it's not for me. It's got nothing to do with "agenda's" either, I'm pretty solidly anti-Lambert at present. I don't, however, feel the need to force my opinion down anybodies throat nor do I think personal insults are necessary. We are, after all, Villa fans. A bit of banter yeah, and sometimes that banter can be misconstrued, sometimes it is clearly tainted with vicious breath. I find it pathetic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Someone else said it a while back. If Lambert had more money we'd just have better players under performing. He's shown nothing to make me think spending more money would see big improvement. Have our players underperformed? Have Delph, Vlaar, Benteke, Guzan underperformed? Westwood? I don't think so. The players themselves have played to their best a lot of the time, unfortunately there have always been gaping holes in the side, and a lot of players just aren't very good - especially (but not exclusively) the ones Lambert inherited. Ofcourse they have under performed?? When they perform they beat the Chelsea's, Man City's and Liverplops. Though do I blame the players, not sure??? As its very difficult to play at your full potential when you want to attack but are being coached to track back and defend every game!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 So because he sat down in a game youve gone off him? Conveniently missing my explanation of why off. It shows his attitude. There is a list of reasons and that for me was the final straw. Lamberts record deserves sacking. The fact we haven't progressed the dross we get to watch the copitualtion to lower league teams etc but you can put that down to the tools at his disposal but him not seemingly being bothered about a home cup tie is inexcusable. It's not coincidence we are easy fodder for lower league teams. I know you seem to point to him having his hands tied financially but surely after 3 years we should have a pattern of play? We have Southampton at home on Monday we probably won't get 35% of the ball i just hope we have a few shots!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 If its all about money spent and this is why we can't blame Lambert, I take it if we did have new owners who gave more money to Lambert he'd then get none of the credit if we started to do well? I have a feeling the same people using money to deflect him of any blame would be the first ones praising him if he succeeded with more being spent. Sigh. No, it's not all about money spent. I imagine the day to day running of a football club is far more intricate than I could possibly know about. Lambert has to shoulder responsibility as he's picked the teams, bought in the players he has and presumably sets them up to play however they play each week. As a precursor to "doing well" in the Premier League, though, you need money. It really is that **** simple. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 If its all about money spent and this is why we can't blame Lambert, I take it if we did have new owners who gave more money to Lambert he'd then get none of the credit if we started to do well? I have a feeling the same people using money to deflect him of any blame would be the first ones praising him if he succeeded with more being spent. Sigh. No, it's not all about money spent. I imagine the day to day running of a football club is far more intricate than I could possibly know about. Lambert has to shoulder responsibility as he's picked the teams, bought in the players he has and presumably sets them up to play however they play each week. As a precursor to "doing well" in the Premier League, though, you need money. It really is that **** simple. Don't really explain the Bradford debarcle though does it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 If its all about money spent and this is why we can't blame Lambert, I take it if we did have new owners who gave more money to Lambert he'd then get none of the credit if we started to do well? I have a feeling the same people using money to deflect him of any blame would be the first ones praising him if he succeeded with more being spent. Sigh. No, it's not all about money spent. I imagine the day to day running of a football club is far more intricate than I could possibly know about. Lambert has to shoulder responsibility as he's picked the teams, bought in the players he has and presumably sets them up to play however they play each week. As a precursor to "doing well" in the Premier League, though, you need money. It really is that **** simple. Don't really explain the Bradford debarcle though does it??? Should probably sack Van Gaal after he spent £160m but lost 4-0 to MK Dons then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) If its all about money spent and this is why we can't blame Lambert, I take it if we did have new owners who gave more money to Lambert he'd then get none of the credit if we started to do well? I have a feeling the same people using money to deflect him of any blame would be the first ones praising him if he succeeded with more being spent. Sigh. No, it's not all about money spent. I imagine the day to day running of a football club is far more intricate than I could possibly know about. Lambert has to shoulder responsibility as he's picked the teams, bought in the players he has and presumably sets them up to play however they play each week. As a precursor to "doing well" in the Premier League, though, you need money. It really is that **** simple. Not sure why the need to sigh. I wouldn't disagree with that. But then it wasn't worded like that by some previously. I don't think it's all just about money and there's only so much he can do with limited funds. Edited November 17, 2014 by DCJonah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts