mikeyp102 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Which is why I said his football is awful. His results are below average which is better than awful. Awful? I give up, I really do. Genuine question, but why do have so much faith in Lambert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 He's still done a good job. Comparing him to other Villa managers is meaningless, because they all came into better situations. The lack of money and the awful squad he inherited is why villa aren't better now. No, his tactics aren't perfect and some of the transfers have been poor, but every manager messes lots of transfers up. Like Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez and Pochettino. With the budget he's had, to have Villa where they are, is better than most would've done. We're in the top half of the league for transfer expenditure in the last two seasons. Transfer expenditure that was spent on 16 players, not on 5 or 6. But 16 which works out to about 2.7million per player. Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. We didn't need 16 players. 6 or 7 decent players would have been far more use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 He's still done a good job. Comparing him to other Villa managers is meaningless, because they all came into better situations. The lack of money and the awful squad he inherited is why villa aren't better now. No, his tactics aren't perfect and some of the transfers have been poor, but every manager messes lots of transfers up. Like Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez and Pochettino. With the budget he's had, to have Villa where they are, is better than most would've done. We're in the top half of the league for transfer expenditure in the last two seasons. Transfer expenditure that was spent on 16 players, not on 5 or 6. But 16 which works out to about 2.7million per player. Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. Apart from his boss. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Which is why I said his football is awful. His results are below average which is better than awful. Awful? I give up, I really do. Watching Villa play football under Lambert's management is a bit like most British summers …. long periods of generally rubbish cloudy overcast skies, with the occasional sunny day that brings a real smile to your face. (I've just remembered that last summer was really pleasant, so here's hoping!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 He's still done a good job. Comparing him to other Villa managers is meaningless, because they all came into better situations. The lack of money and the awful squad he inherited is why villa aren't better now. No, his tactics aren't perfect and some of the transfers have been poor, but every manager messes lots of transfers up. Like Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez and Pochettino. With the budget he's had, to have Villa where they are, is better than most would've done. We're in the top half of the league for transfer expenditure in the last two seasons. Transfer expenditure that was spent on 16 players, not on 5 or 6. But 16 which works out to about 2.7million per player. Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. Apart from his boss. This is what people can't seem to get into their heads. He HAD to rebuild, he HAD to create nearly an entire squad. It was not a choice! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 He's still done a good job. Comparing him to other Villa managers is meaningless, because they all came into better situations. The lack of money and the awful squad he inherited is why villa aren't better now. No, his tactics aren't perfect and some of the transfers have been poor, but every manager messes lots of transfers up. Like Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez and Pochettino. With the budget he's had, to have Villa where they are, is better than most would've done. We're in the top half of the league for transfer expenditure in the last two seasons. Transfer expenditure that was spent on 16 players, not on 5 or 6. But 16 which works out to about 2.7million per player. Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. Apart from his boss. So you reckon his boss said "Paul, I want you to buy 16 players" Yea right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) I don't understand all this positive and negative stuff in relation to tactics. you can play an offensively loaded team, that just ends up getting slapped and dumped on your arse , depending on who the opposition is and how they are set up. Jose Mourinho ( don't be distracted by the name, listen to the point) chose to play 4-2-3-1 against a Man city,a team who, in HIS opinion, was better than his own.He set up with 2 DMs, that in stature represented centre halves, so its like playing 4 center halves in a square....He could be in some quarters be accused of playing "Negative".....When questioned, He said he went for the win.He knew exactly what he was doing. If you go all guns blazing, you are playing a dangerous game, particularly if the other team are half decent too. When we won the league in 80/81 when we went one goal up the game was all over, in the main....we learnt the art of closing down and pressing and executed it very well... we had just 4 out and out offensive players and the rest defensive with Mortimer, Bremner and Evans metamorphosing when the opportunity arose and chipping in with goals. some times a reversed psychology is required and that what is first be seen as negative ( like red riding hood, it ain't all what it seems) can actually be positive. Edited February 11, 2014 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 He's still done a good job. Comparing him to other Villa managers is meaningless, because they all came into better situations. The lack of money and the awful squad he inherited is why villa aren't better now. No, his tactics aren't perfect and some of the transfers have been poor, but every manager messes lots of transfers up. Like Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez and Pochettino. With the budget he's had, to have Villa where they are, is better than most would've done. We're in the top half of the league for transfer expenditure in the last two seasons. Transfer expenditure that was spent on 16 players, not on 5 or 6. But 16 which works out to about 2.7million per player. Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. Apart from his boss. So you reckon his boss said "Paul, I want you to buy 16 players" Yea right! The quotes have been repeated over and over in this thread. He HAD to rebuild the squad. Was part of his remit. I'm not even defending his performance as a manager; just this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 He's still done a good job. Comparing him to other Villa managers is meaningless, because they all came into better situations. The lack of money and the awful squad he inherited is why villa aren't better now. No, his tactics aren't perfect and some of the transfers have been poor, but every manager messes lots of transfers up. Like Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez and Pochettino. With the budget he's had, to have Villa where they are, is better than most would've done. We're in the top half of the league for transfer expenditure in the last two seasons. Transfer expenditure that was spent on 16 players, not on 5 or 6. But 16 which works out to about 2.7million per player. Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. Apart from his boss. So you reckon his boss said "Paul, I want you to buy 16 players" Yea right! More like "Paul, we're going to need you to rebuild the squad from the ground up, you can keep X Y Z players but the rest are being shipped out" There wouldn't of been an exact number, of course not, but he clearly had to bring in an array of players to fill out the squad. I understand people being annoyed at Lerner, Lambert and the players but using the amount of players brought in as a stick to beat Lambert with is unfair. You could argue that the quality of the players he has brought in isn't up to scratch, but that brings us back to the amount of money he had to spend on what is pretty much an entirely new squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 He's still done a good job. Comparing him to other Villa managers is meaningless, because they all came into better situations. The lack of money and the awful squad he inherited is why villa aren't better now. No, his tactics aren't perfect and some of the transfers have been poor, but every manager messes lots of transfers up. Like Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez and Pochettino. With the budget he's had, to have Villa where they are, is better than most would've done. We're in the top half of the league for transfer expenditure in the last two seasons. Transfer expenditure that was spent on 16 players, not on 5 or 6. But 16 which works out to about 2.7million per player. Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. Apart from his boss. So you reckon his boss said "Paul, I want you to buy 16 players" Yea right! The quotes have been repeated over and over in this thread. He HAD to rebuild the squad. Was part of his remit. I'm not even defending his performance as a manager; just this point. He HAD to buy several poor full backs and several poor strikers when other areas of the team needed strengthening? I don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Paul Faulkner, CEO of the company lest we forget, stated clearly in front of supporters that it was ENTIRELY Paul Lambert's decision to spend the allotted transfer kitty as he saw fit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Which is why I said his football is awful. His results are below average which is better than awful. Awful? I give up, I really do. Genuine question, but why do have so much faith in Lambert? Why? Maybe part of me knows that another manager would encounter the same problems and the outcomes would not be too dissimilar. I also think sacking Lambert would continue the cycle of instability. I believe Lambert has done a good job overall when you look at the circumstances, although I understand where people are coming from in terms of entertainment and paying to watch us at home, it is frankly not good enough. But I have faith Lambert will improve us given time and the right funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Paul Faulkner, CEO of the company lest we forget, stated clearly in front of supporters that it was ENTIRELY Paul Lambert's decision to spend the allotted transfer kitty as he saw fit. True but it also mentions wages being sustainable. Balancing the wages would surely limit who we could attract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Which is why I said his football is awful. His results are below average which is better than awful. Awful? I give up, I really do. Genuine question, but why do have so much faith in Lambert? Why? Maybe part of me knows that another manager would encounter the same problems and the outcomes would not be too dissimilar. I also think sacking Lambert would continue the cycle of instability. I believe Lambert has done a good job overall when you look at the circumstances, although I understand where people are coming from in terms of entertainment and paying to watch us at home, it is frankly not good enough. But I have faith Lambert will improve us given time and the right funding. You should be his campaign manager! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Paul Faulkner, CEO of the company lest we forget, stated clearly in front of supporters that it was ENTIRELY Paul Lambert's decision to spend the allotted transfer kitty as he saw fit. Oh okay we'll ignore Lerner's letter from last January shall we? Stating that the overhaul was a decision made by the board and was always going to happen regardless of who they appointed. Lambert could buy what players he wanted within the allotted kitty as you put it, but I would imagine it becomes a lot more difficult to get the players you want in when you have to buy so many of them. There isn't much point going over and over it again, the rebuild was a decision made by the board before Lambert's appointment. The owner of the club has said that, simples. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. We didn't need 16 players. 6 or 7 decent players would have been far more use. He needed too. If PL were to do as you believe the squad would be around 12 to 14 players, we would be screwed when injuries and suspensions hit. Edited February 11, 2014 by GENTLEMAN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. We didn't need 16 players. 6 or 7 decent players would have been far more use. He needed too. If PL were to do as you believe the squad would be around 12 to 14 players, we would be screwed when injuries and suspensions hit. We have players in the reserves that could probably do a better job than some of the dross he has bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. We didn't need 16 players. 6 or 7 decent players would have been far more use. He needed too. If PL were to do as you believe the squad would be around 12 to 14 players, we would be screwed when injuries and suspensions hit. We have players in the reserves that could probably do a better job than some of the dross he has bought. You are being unreasonable expecting all Lambert's signings to be successes, especially instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyjsg Posted February 11, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 11, 2014 Nobody asked him to buy 16 players. We didn't need 16 players. 6 or 7 decent players would have been far more use. He needed too. If PL were to do as you believe the squad would be around 12 to 14 players, we would be screwed when injuries and suspensions hit. We have players in the reserves that could probably do a better job than some of the dross he has bought. Ah the old "playing in a good reserve team must be the next Messi argument". Well played sir, well played. I think he has pulled together a mediocre prem team on a serious budget. Also I keep seeing Kozak mentioned as a waste, didn't he win us some games earlier in the season? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I can accept defeats but its the manner of them which hurts most. We play shit football in the main with occasional glimpses of good stuff. Tonight's formation just looks like another random team thrown together. Still, can't be any worse than the shot served up on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts