Mantis Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I used to think that way. But lets face it - his record is still superior to Lamberts - Promoted twice - Won the League Cup - Placed higher in his only season here than Lambert has yet to achieve It's true that Lambert has not been relegated while McLeish has - but boy! He's cutting it damn close. I no longer believe we wanted rid "because he was a terrible football manager".... ... simply due to the fact we tolerate a worse one now. What bearing does the fact that some people "tolerate" worse now have on the reasons people had for wanting McLeish gone? I think some fans just see the owner as a much bigger problem which is perhaps a view they didn't hold 3 years ago. This whole "Villa fans wanted McLeish sacked because he used to manage Birmingham" is a total myth cooked up by the media. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The only record that matters is McLeish's time at Villa, which is far worse than it was under Lambert. People seem to be forgetting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I think some fans just see the owner as a much bigger problem which is perhaps a view they didn't hold 3 years ago. I wonder if with hindsight they'd have kept McLeish? The only record that matters is McLeish's time at Villa, which is far worse than it was under Lambert. People seem to be forgetting it. How was it far worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) The minus 20 million net spent by McLeish doesn't sit right with me as a way of disparaging Lambert. At the time we had assets still left over from the heavy spending days of MON and that is why we had a net spend that year as they wanted out and we cashed in. McLeish actually bought very poorly with the money he did have in my opinion. Hypothetically if we had sold Benteke and were about to sell Vlaar and Delph instead of them potentially walking on a free, we could well be saying that Lambert has had a minus net transfer spend as well. Edited November 12, 2014 by sexbelowsound 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I think some fans just see the owner as a much bigger problem which is perhaps a view they didn't hold 3 years ago. I wonder if with hindsight they'd have kept McLeish? Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 12, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted November 12, 2014 Net spend can be misleading, especially over a short period of time. Look at Spurs when they sold Bale. They'll show a profit (or at least only a small net spend) despite all their subsequent purchases, but you can't really say they spent wiseley with the Bale money. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either. Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 We'd be playing in a lower league right now with mcleish at the helm 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either. Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former. Honestly think we would have deteriorated even more if we had of stuck with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either. Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former. Yeah that was my point. If people blame the owner(which is fair enough) then we might as well have stuck with McLeish, if the same level of performance is fine now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either. Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former. Yeah that was my point. If people blame the owner(which is fair enough) then we might as well have stuck with McLeish, if the same level of performance is fine now. It isn't the same level of performance though is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Honestly think we would have deteriorated even more if we had of stuck with him. No way of knowing for sure but we likely would've done a bit better in his second season in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either. Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former. Honestly think we would have deteriorated even more if we had of stuck with him. There's a good chance but we wouldn't know for sure. We do know we've deteriorated under Lambert though. Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either. Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former. Honestly think we would have deteriorated even more if we had of stuck with him. There's a good chance but we wouldn't know for sure. We do know we've deteriorated under Lambert though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Honestly think we would have deteriorated even more if we had of stuck with him. No way of knowing for sure but we likely would've done a bit better in his second season in my opinion. Why likely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why? Lambert being poor doesn't make McLeish any less poor either.Yes but we haven't really advanced on McLeish with his successor so in hindsight, we may as well just have retained the former. Yeah that was my point. If people blame the owner(which is fair enough) then we might as well have stuck with McLeish, if the same level of performance is fine now. It isn't the same level of performance though is it. How is it much different? We lose more, we barely score more and we let in more goals. We average the same amount of points per game and possession and long ball stats are one of the highest in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw_nuff Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Who'se worse: Lambert or Macleish. Where's Harry Hill when you need him? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why likely? He would've strengthened the squad a bit and the bar was set so low, that you'd think it would've been difficult to do that badly again. I know he did it at Small Heath but their squad was much weaker. Due to hindsight, there is a bit of revisionism (not saying from you personally) regarding the perception of his appointment. As unpopular as it was, I don't recall anyone genuinely fearing that he'd actually take us down. Most of us expected him to bore us to death yet probably finish mid-table. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 We should have appointed Mark Hughes after MON, we would be pretty stable IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Comparing managers is never going to work as all have worked under different circumstances. All I do know regardless of who has had the rougher deal I feel now about Lambert as I did with McLeish and that its a chore to go and watch the Villa. I have always thought whoever we played we could beat them home or away now that's normally blind optimism but that's what being a fan entails most of the time. Now I'm hoping for a decent performance more than a decent result and I'm not optimistic we can do it regardless of who we are playing. We seem to have 2 tactics attack with Benteke and defend without him. Our best players Vlaar and Delph look like they're off and who can blame them. Theyre either looking for a last pay day or want to win things neither of which look likely here. If the football showed any sort of progress I think most would back Lambert but there isn't I want to enjoy going to VP again and soon and the quickest way for that to happen is to get a manager who inspires the fans and the players. Our players are better than their performances who's fault is that?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Looking at Lambert's tenure so far, if he was to leave tomorrow he would go down as one of the worst managers in our History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts