Electric Avenue Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 What is the definition of premier league quality? Katy Perry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Out of 16 signings 4 have been of Premiership standard. Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan and Bacuna. Okore can't be judged yet. The rest have been poor although with a change in policy in going for more experienced players hopefully that ratio will now improve? Out of 16 signings, only 4 have been at Premiership prices, and low ones at that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Lets get the FB issue out of the way first. In an ideal world you need cover in every position and thats a point which any football fan would agree on. However the point which you so readily ignore is that Lambert has purchased FBs that clearly aren't good enough particularly down our left hand side which opposing teams have continually targeted and that's why Lambert has now brought in another with Premiership experience. You remember that point I have continually made on site VillaCas concerning a balance between Premiership experience and youth? It's interesting that Lambert is now pursuing that exact policy after nearly two years. A policy I might add which you were quick to ridicule. The major contributing factor to last season was Lambert being unable to find a system that suited the players he had purchased and this season he has now realised that no matter what system he tries to incorporate those players into, the majority of those players simply aren't good enough. How many of Lambert's purchases do you think another manager would keep? Our poor run of results last season certainly isn't ancient history now as it has been repeated this season again. Losing six in nine and no wins in the last six home games is a set of results with parity to last season as is the wretched football we have been playing up until the game against Liverpool. Those set of results alone should give cause for concern rather than quick fix triumphalism depicted by graphs. Still no graph showing Lambert's overall record with us I see. What are you afraid of VillaCas? Player comparisons are down to opinion yet results are not and those players you place so much faith in now need a helping hand due to results with more experienced players the type of which Lambert got rid of. Holt v Bent . Fonz v Bowery or Helenius. Albrighton v Tonev but at least Lambert has realised his mistake with Tonev and ended Albrighton's loan. Any progress made now due to signings could have been made at least a year ago if Lambert had allocated his budget better. We should have been where you expected us to be and that's not fighting a relegation battle last season and not trying to play catch up now. You have a unique arguing style Morf - a scattergun of random and disparate trains of thought, which if one gets answered you just try and switch seamlessly to the next. Let's try and untangle your latest rag-bag of thoughts Firstly Full-Backs (in fact, players in general) - the policy has been to bring in inexpensive signings to do a job for us. That job is not to challenge for Champion League spots or trophies, to date it has been to retain premier league football whilst the books are balanced - not what we as fans want to see but that's the reality. In terms of doing the job that they were bought in to do they have succeeded As I told you 18 months ago, the plan as I saw it would then allow better players to come in to replace some on the inexperienced players, and that gradually over the course of two or three more seasons, tranform the team with 2 or 3 quality signings each year. Therefore, with one of our LBs long term injured, it should come as no surprise that Lambert has taken the opportunity to sign a Champions League winning LB to begin that strengthing process - hopefully we have an option to sign Bertrand long term Next, Youth v experience. I have never 'ridiculed' the need for experience but what I have been vocal about is the need to avoid exactly the type of 'experienced' players MON and McL filled our squad with - over-paid and under-enthusastic 'old pros' going through the motions and not giving a flying feck about the club (Ireland, Hutton, Warnock etc). I don't think Hoolahan fits into this category and I also think Lambert would have signed Hoolahan 18 months ago, except there was little chance then that Norwich would let him go - probably still won't It is very odd that you use the pursuit of Hoolahan as evidence of some huge volte-face by Lambert. He was always going to bring in better players as finances improved. Next, your statement that "he has now realised that no matter what system he tries to incorporate those players into, the majority of those players simply aren't good enough" - this is a quote from Lambert is it? Must have past the rest of us by. Next, "how many current players would another manager keep?" - no idea. You obviously don't rate our players, I do. I think, as I outlined above, that we now have a better squad for half the money and half the wages of what was here before. A better question is "how many current players will Lambert keep?". Over the next 2 or 3 seasons I expect at least a dozen new, better players to arrive and at least a dozen existing players move on. By then, I expect us to be nearer the top of the league, so hopefully everytime we sign a better player you won't feel the need to point to that progress as some imagined sign of Lamberts weakness Next - Results. We are a 10th place team - We are 10th in the league for wins, 5th in the league for draws and 11th in the league for losses, 12th for goals for, 11th for goals against and 13th for goal difference. The sort of results we are getting is TYPICAL of mid-table sides. If our results were much better we would be much higher placed which would be unrealistic at this stage in our (re-)development Next Holt v Bent??? What on earth are you on about?? there is no comparision. Bent is a dinasour, a throw-back to another era. There are no successful teams with out and out poacher anymore. When Bent can get into the Fulham side he is a slow walking symbol of football past. Fulham have the worst goals conceded in the league, in part because they don't defend from the front. Holt is a short term loan to give us another option up front Next Fonz v Helenius/ Bowery. These are all bit part players - Shay Given could buy them all with his wages if he wanted. Fonz has had his chance and not been up to it, Helenius and Bowery are still developing and may or may not make it. Personally, I think Bowery has shown massive heart and commitment whenever called upon and although not the most naturally gifted player he has not let us down Next Albrighton v Tonev. This is a false comparison as both are at the club. I think Albrighton is ok but is never going to be an automatic first choice. I think Tonev has been very poor so far Next "Any progress made now due to signings could have been made at least a year ago if Lambert had allocated his budget better" this is bollux and wishful thinking. Finally, James Nursey (no Lambert supporter) had this to say today Aston Villa left Liverpool with an extremely creditable and encouraging point last weekend to leave the club 10th. Afterwards boss Paul Lambert had a pop at his critics and I don't blame him. The Scot said: "People think we are doing poorly and we are sitting tenth - it's really incredible, the perception of it."Reds owner John W Henry was in the crowd to watch Liverpool come from behind to get a point with a debatable penalty after Luis Suarez went down. Henry is the man who, when Arsenal tried to buy Suarez last summer, famously Tweeted: "What do you think they're smoking over there at Emirates?" And I would pose the same question to Lambert's persistent critics who claim to want him sacked. Because when assessing the OVERALL picture of the Premier League it is irrational to dispute Villa are in reasonable shape. I wrote last week why I insist the club is making progress (albeit despite their shocking home form and a few dodgy cheap signings). My criticism of SOME fans' unreasonable expectations was aimed at those who phoned in to demand Lambert's head after a narrow 2-1 loss to Arsenal. I took plenty of grief from Villa fans online who supposed I was having a go at them all. That certainly isn't the case. But I stand by my viewpoint that Lambert is doing fairly well given the financial restraints and cut-backs at Villa. I am no mouth-piece of the club and have been banned previously from Villa Park under Martin O'Neill. I was also among the first journalists to write that Alex McLeish had to go during his controversial, ill-fated reign. But it would be and is pure madness for some Villa fans to demand Lambert leaves now. He has a promisingly, improving young squad who are loyal to him and were assembled at a modest price and are benefiting from stability and continuity at the club for the first since O'Neill left. To go back to square one with a new manager - who would not have major money to spend now Randy Lerner has shut his cheque book - would be pure folly. But some fans still insist Lambert must go. Take Twitter user @bsb_1979. This person, whose biog says: #LambertOut now! Nothing else is wanted!, regularly Tweets me. He asked have I seen Villa at home this season and do I not realise how poor they have been? Well yes, of course I have seen them play (and under-perform) at home regularly this season and it must be very frustrating for supporters. But I have also crucially seen a lot of other live Premier League football elsewhere. And if fans think they have it bad at Villa Park, then they should pay more attention to the rest of the Premier League where Cardiff, Sunderland, West Ham, Fulham, Palace, Swansea, Stoke, West Brom and Norwich all have bigger worries. Many fans of those clubs think they are doomed. Their bigger woes, allied with some decent Villa performances (mainly away granted), means Lambert's men are well on course to finish around mid-table which I feel is in line with their spending. That is a satisfactory improvement on last season's 15th spot and why the club is heading in the right direction despite no longer spending masses on transfer fees and salaries. It is blatantly obvious and transparent to a neutral like me but clearly not to a section of SOME fans who have demanded Lambert's head. We'll have to continue to disagree. But some better home performances certainly would not go amiss and would underline more clearly Lambert's Villa side are improving on a (shallow) steady upward curve. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Out of 16 signings 4 have been of Premiership standard. Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan and Bacuna. Okore can't be judged yet. The rest have been poor although with a change in policy in going for more experienced players hopefully that ratio will now improve? The warped argument that is most rolled out is "Lambert has spent £40m but not improved the squad" Now if you were to spend £40m adding to an established squad you would expect the outcome to be a pretty competitive unit however when you are completely replacing a squad £40m is small change. Lambert has spent £40m on 16 players and at the same time we have shipped out 18 players that cost us £80m - in effect a net spend of minus £40m All that being said, given the financial restrictions, I still think that we have done some good business Goalkeepers - We have replaced Given and Marshall with Guzan and Steer at zero cost and on probably half the wages Defence - Lowton, Vlaar, Okore, Luna for 11m or Hutton, Collins, Dunne, Warnock for 20m - no contest for me and at less than half the wages Midfield - Makoun, Ireland, Bannon, Holman at 14m or Westwood, Bacuna, KEA, Sylla at half that and half the wages - no contest Forwards - Benteke 7m or Bent 24m? Heskey or Kozak? Even though not setting the world on fire, Bennett for Stevens and Helenius for Fonz are still improvements. Bowery might not make it but cost peanuts. Only Tonev has been a failure so far. In the next few windows, I'm sure we will work to up the quality of the first XI, buying two or three quality players each season and integrating academy prospects as they become ready, whilst moving on those that don't make it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Out of 16 signings 4 have been of Premiership standard. Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan and Bacuna. Okore can't be judged yet. The rest have been poor although with a change in policy in going for more experienced players hopefully that ratio will now improve? "a change of policy" hahahaha The 18 players who left, cost double and earnt double of the incoming players. I'd be interested in your view of : How many of the 18 players who left were "Premiership standard" in your opinion? How many of the 18 players who left are better than those who arrived? How many of the 18 players who left are regulars in teams above us right now (I'll help you with this one - none of them) Edited January 23, 2014 by VillaCas 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 How exactly do people define "Premiership standard" anyway? It just seems like a label that gets thrown at anybody that isn't a very good player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) How exactly do people define "Premiership standard" anyway? It just seems like a label that gets thrown at anybody that isn't a very good player. Mostly used as "players who could get into a Champions League side" i.e. 80% of players playing in the Premiership are not "Premiership Quality" Edited January 23, 2014 by VillaCas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Out of 16 signings 4 have been of Premiership standard. Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan and Bacuna. Okore can't be judged yet. The rest have been poor In your opinion. Absolutely!! Isn't that what an internet forum is for. Out of 16 signings 4 have been of Premiership standard. Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan and Bacuna. Okore can't be judged yet. The rest have been poor In your opinion. Opinion seems to equal fact around here these days Not unless you think so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Lets get the FB issue out of the way first. In an ideal world you need cover in every position and thats a point which any football fan would agree on. However the point which you so readily ignore is that Lambert has purchased FBs that clearly aren't good enough particularly down our left hand side which opposing teams have continually targeted and that's why Lambert has now brought in another with Premiership experience. You remember that point I have continually made on site VillaCas concerning a balance between Premiership experience and youth? It's interesting that Lambert is now pursuing that exact policy after nearly two years. A policy I might add which you were quick to ridicule. The major contributing factor to last season was Lambert being unable to find a system that suited the players he had purchased and this season he has now realised that no matter what system he tries to incorporate those players into, the majority of those players simply aren't good enough. How many of Lambert's purchases do you think another manager would keep? Our poor run of results last season certainly isn't ancient history now as it has been repeated this season again. Losing six in nine and no wins in the last six home games is a set of results with parity to last season as is the wretched football we have been playing up until the game against Liverpool. Those set of results alone should give cause for concern rather than quick fix triumphalism depicted by graphs. Still no graph showing Lambert's overall record with us I see. What are you afraid of VillaCas? Player comparisons are down to opinion yet results are not and those players you place so much faith in now need a helping hand due to results with more experienced players the type of which Lambert got rid of. Holt v Bent . Fonz v Bowery or Helenius. Albrighton v Tonev but at least Lambert has realised his mistake with Tonev and ended Albrighton's loan. Any progress made now due to signings could have been made at least a year ago if Lambert had allocated his budget better. We should have been where you expected us to be and that's not fighting a relegation battle last season and not trying to play catch up now. You have a unique arguing style Morf - a scattergun of random and disparate trains of thought, which if one gets answered you just try and switch seamlessly to the next. Let's try and untangle your latest rag-bag of thoughts Firstly Full-Backs (in fact, players in general) - the policy has been to bring in inexpensive signings to do a job for us. That job is not to challenge for Champion League spots or trophies, to date it has been to retain premier league football whilst the books are balanced - not what we as fans want to see but that's the reality. In terms of doing the job that they were bought in to do they have succeeded As I told you 18 months ago, the plan as I saw it would then allow better players to come in to replace some on the inexperienced players, and that gradually over the course of two or three more seasons, tranform the team with 2 or 3 quality signings each year. Therefore, with one of our LBs long term injured, it should come as no surprise that Lambert has taken the opportunity to sign a Champions League winning LB to begin that strengthing process - hopefully we have an option to sign Bertrand long term Next, Youth v experience. I have never 'ridiculed' the need for experience but what I have been vocal about is the need to avoid exactly the type of 'experienced' players MON and McL filled our squad with - over-paid and under-enthusastic 'old pros' going through the motions and not giving a flying feck about the club (Ireland, Hutton, Warnock etc). I don't think Hoolahan fits into this category and I also think Lambert would have signed Hoolahan 18 months ago, except there was little chance then that Norwich would let him go - probably still won't It is very odd that you use the pursuit of Hoolahan as evidence of some huge volte-face by Lambert. He was always going to bring in better players as finances improved. Next, your statement that "he has now realised that no matter what system he tries to incorporate those players into, the majority of those players simply aren't good enough" - this is a quote from Lambert is it? Must have past the rest of us by. Next, "how many current players would another manager keep?" - no idea. You obviously don't rate our players, I do. I think, as I outlined above, that we now have a better squad for half the money and half the wages of what was here before. A better question is "how many current players will Lambert keep?". Over the next 2 or 3 seasons I expect at least a dozen new, better players to arrive and at least a dozen existing players move on. By then, I expect us to be nearer the top of the league, so hopefully everytime we sign a better player you won't feel the need to point to that progress as some imagined sign of Lamberts weakness Next - Results. We are a 10th place team - We are 10th in the league for wins, 5th in the league for draws and 11th in the league for losses, 12th for goals for, 11th for goals against and 13th for goal difference. The sort of results we are getting is TYPICAL of mid-table sides. If our results were much better we would be much higher placed which would be unrealistic at this stage in our (re-)development Next Holt v Bent??? What on earth are you on about?? there is no comparision. Bent is a dinasour, a throw-back to another era. There are no successful teams with out and out poacher anymore. When Bent can get into the Fulham side he is a slow walking symbol of football past. Fulham have the worst goals conceded in the league, in part because they don't defend from the front. Holt is a short term loan to give us another option up front Next Fonz v Helenius/ Bowery. These are all bit part players - Shay Given could buy them all with his wages if he wanted. Fonz has had his chance and not been up to it, Helenius and Bowery are still developing and may or may not make it. Personally, I think Bowery has shown massive heart and commitment whenever called upon and although not the most naturally gifted player he has not let us down Next Albrighton v Tonev. This is a false comparison as both are at the club. I think Albrighton is ok but is never going to be an automatic first choice. I think Tonev has been very poor so far Next "Any progress made now due to signings could have been made at least a year ago if Lambert had allocated his budget better" this is bollux and wishful thinking. Finally, James Nursey (no Lambert supporter) had this to say today Aston Villa left Liverpool with an extremely creditable and encouraging point last weekend to leave the club 10th. Afterwards boss Paul Lambert had a pop at his critics and I don't blame him. The Scot said: "People think we are doing poorly and we are sitting tenth - it's really incredible, the perception of it."Reds owner John W Henry was in the crowd to watch Liverpool come from behind to get a point with a debatable penalty after Luis Suarez went down. Henry is the man who, when Arsenal tried to buy Suarez last summer, famously Tweeted: "What do you think they're smoking over there at Emirates?" And I would pose the same question to Lambert's persistent critics who claim to want him sacked. Because when assessing the OVERALL picture of the Premier League it is irrational to dispute Villa are in reasonable shape. I wrote last week why I insist the club is making progress (albeit despite their shocking home form and a few dodgy cheap signings). My criticism of SOME fans' unreasonable expectations was aimed at those who phoned in to demand Lambert's head after a narrow 2-1 loss to Arsenal. I took plenty of grief from Villa fans online who supposed I was having a go at them all. That certainly isn't the case. But I stand by my viewpoint that Lambert is doing fairly well given the financial restraints and cut-backs at Villa. I am no mouth-piece of the club and have been banned previously from Villa Park under Martin O'Neill. I was also among the first journalists to write that Alex McLeish had to go during his controversial, ill-fated reign. But it would be and is pure madness for some Villa fans to demand Lambert leaves now. He has a promisingly, improving young squad who are loyal to him and were assembled at a modest price and are benefiting from stability and continuity at the club for the first since O'Neill left. To go back to square one with a new manager - who would not have major money to spend now Randy Lerner has shut his cheque book - would be pure folly. But some fans still insist Lambert must go. Take Twitter user @bsb_1979. This person, whose biog says: #LambertOut now! Nothing else is wanted!, regularly Tweets me. He asked have I seen Villa at home this season and do I not realise how poor they have been? Well yes, of course I have seen them play (and under-perform) at home regularly this season and it must be very frustrating for supporters. But I have also crucially seen a lot of other live Premier League football elsewhere. And if fans think they have it bad at Villa Park, then they should pay more attention to the rest of the Premier League where Cardiff, Sunderland, West Ham, Fulham, Palace, Swansea, Stoke, West Brom and Norwich all have bigger worries. Many fans of those clubs think they are doomed. Their bigger woes, allied with some decent Villa performances (mainly away granted), means Lambert's men are well on course to finish around mid-table which I feel is in line with their spending. That is a satisfactory improvement on last season's 15th spot and why the club is heading in the right direction despite no longer spending masses on transfer fees and salaries. It is blatantly obvious and transparent to a neutral like me but clearly not to a section of SOME fans who have demanded Lambert's head. We'll have to continue to disagree. But some better home performances certainly would not go amiss and would underline more clearly Lambert's Villa side are improving on a (shallow) steady upward curve. Next, Youth v experience. I have never 'ridiculed' the need for experience but what I have been vocal about is the need to avoid exactly the type of 'experienced' players MON and McL filled our squad with - over-paid and under-enthusastic 'old pros' going through the motions and not giving a flying feck about the club (Ireland, Hutton, Warnock etc). I don't think Hoolahan fits into this category and I also think Lambert would have signed Hoolahan 18 months ago, except there was little chance then that Norwich would let him go - probably still won't It is very odd that you use the pursuit of Hoolahan as evidence of some huge volte-face by Lambert. He was always going to bring in better players as finances improved. This part I found most interesting as it carries the biggest contradiction of all in your above post and that is saying something. Quite simply you say that Lambert hasn't done an about turn in policy because 'he was always going to bring in better players as finances improved.' Bertrand has been brought in on loan. Holt has been brought in on loan and how much more is Hoolahan going to cost in comparison to Helenius, or Tonev for example? You do see what i'm getting at here VillaCas? To clarify further if you don't. Lambert is still shopping in the bargain basement bucket but he has now turned to experienced players with the same budget constraints. That would suggest would it not that this change in directive policy is nothing to do with increased finance from Lerner but everything to do with Lambert's original policy not working. Inadvertently you have just proven my point for me. Concerning your other points we could trade articles and we could trade opinions on which player is better but the overriding question in our debates has been whether Lambert's tenure to date has been a successful one? So the only way to prove one way or another if that is indeed the case, is to make reference to his overall record with us. Since you have continually refused to provide a stat or graph showing this let me provide you with one. http://www.soccerbase.com/managers/manager.sd?manager_id=2007 Edited January 23, 2014 by Morpheus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Morpheus - When we signed Lambert were you under the impression we were getting the finished article? I wasn't. I expected he would have to learn and evolve himself. That seems to be a major issue for you? You've spent weeks arguing it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Morpheus - When we signed Lambert were you under the impression we were getting the finished article? I wasn't. I expected he would have to learn and evolve himself. That seems to be a major issue for you? You've spent weeks arguing it. I knew what we were getting ddid. Well thats not exactly true but I was very concerned that he would turn us into another Norwich, a team full of gusto but very little else and I have been consistent in that view right from the start of Lambert's tenure with us. To date that premonition if you want to call it that, has in my opinion come true. Up until the game against Liverpool we really have been playing some awful stuff this season again with only one or two exceptions and the results in general have reflected that. I remember many last season stating that our football would improve this season but it really hasn't. I'm not really sure what would define the finished article concerning any manager. I suppose you could put forward a number of managers who have loads of experience and have been successful at some clubs while failing at others. The best example that I can think of who might be deemed the finished article is Fergie but if he had left Man U earlier in his career for a different club with similar finance would the success he had at Man U been repeated? I'm just not convinced that Lambert is the right manager to take us forward but he nevertheless continues to receive an elongated sabbatical from the majority of the fan base even though there is little to base that faith on. He might however as you say grow with the club and I sincerely hope he does but apart from performances that you can count on one hand do you really see much evidence of that at the moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Out of 16 signings 4 have been of Premiership standard. Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan and Bacuna. Okore can't be judged yet. The rest have been poor although with a change in policy in going for more experienced players hopefully that ratio will now improve? "a change of policy" hahahaha The 18 players who left, cost double and earnt double of the incoming players. I'd be interested in your view of : How many of the 18 players who left were "Premiership standard" in your opinion? How many of the 18 players who left are better than those who arrived? How many of the 18 players who left are regulars in teams above us right now (I'll help you with this one - none of them) Your questions above have absolutely nothing to do with my point concerning a change of policy and i have answered that directly in the post above. How exactly do people define "Premiership standard" anyway? It just seems like a label that gets thrown at anybody that isn't a very good player. Mostly used as "players who could get into a Champions League side" i.e. 80% of players playing in the Premiership are not "Premiership Quality" Interested to see you providing a stat that 80% of players in the Premiership aren't what you would deem 'Premiership standard.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I have seen signs yes. I think his biggest faults to date have been being over reliant on one player (Benteke) and over reliant on youth. I now see him making strides to correct one of those failings and it pleases me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yeah mate fair enough. It's a pity one or two others wouldn't also admit your second stated fault even when it's staring them in the face but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I think the other factor here aswell as the over - reliance on benteke and youth, is the tactics or lack of . For the vast majority of his tenure (particularly at home) I have sat watching a team that appears devoid of a coherent plan, devoid of any shape or organisation, devoid of belief and mostly devoid of any tactical management, awareness or coaching and aswell as Lambert much of the blame has to land at the feet of Karsa and Culverhouse who in my view are not Premier League level coaching staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) I like Paul!! He doesn't really have any traits that piss me off. I really want him to do well with us and hope he is given the tools to achieve something here. The other managers we have had in the past 10 years have all had something about them that made me dislike them a little bit. Or in McLeish's case - lots of things. XD Edited January 23, 2014 by Tayls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 This part I found most interesting as it carries the biggest contradiction of all in your above post and that is saying something. Quite simply you say that Lambert hasn't done an about turn in policy because 'he was always going to bring in better players as finances improved.' Bertrand has been brought in on loan. Holt has been brought in on loan and how much more is Hoolahan going to cost in comparison to Helenius, or Tonev for example? You do see what i'm getting at here VillaCas? To clarify further if you don't. Lambert is still shopping in the bargain basement bucket but he has now turned to experienced players with the same budget constraints. That would suggest would it not that this change in directive policy is nothing to do with increased finance from Lerner but everything to do with Lambert's original policy not working. Inadvertently you have just proven my point for me. So you are basing your whole "change of policy" schtick on Holt coming in on loan and Lamberts interest in Hoolahan?? - Lambert has always rated Hoolahan. As I clearly point out I believe Lambert would have bought in Hoolahan 18 months ago if he could have prised him away from Norwich which was very unlikely if not impossible at the time and certainly not for £1m - He has obviously signed Holt as cover for 4 months whilst Kozak is out - why not? an experienced CF who we are not paying a fortune for - Bertrand is 24? Should we sign Hoolahan (which I hope we do) in your confused world one "over 30" signing in 17 would represent an "about turn in policy" would it? I'm certain that if Lambert could have bought in experienced, proven players for the same money as the "young and hungry" players he would have Additionally, what was right for us in 2012 does not neccessarily continue to be the correct approach in 2014 - as circumstances and finainces change then so do requirements and possibilities Lambert improved on McL by getting more points and a higher league position whilst utilising half the resources and is on track to deliver a mid-table finish this season. Clear improvement. With Hoolahan and a three or four additional quality players coming in the summer, I'm looking forward to a top half finish next season As you've failed to respond to all my other points I'm taking it that you've conceded defeat on those I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Morpheus - When we signed Lambert were you under the impression we were getting the finished article? I wasn't. I expected he would have to learn and evolve himself. That seems to be a major issue for you? You've spent weeks arguing it. I knew what we were getting ddid. Well thats not exactly true but I was very concerned that he would turn us into another Norwich, a team full of gusto but very little else and I have been consistent in that view right from the start of Lambert's tenure with us. To date that premonition if you want to call it that, has in my opinion come true. Up until the game against Liverpool we really have been playing some awful stuff this season again with only one or two exceptions and the results in general have reflected that. I remember many last season stating that our football would improve this season but it really hasn't. I'm not really sure what would define the finished article concerning any manager. I suppose you could put forward a number of managers who have loads of experience and have been successful at some clubs while failing at others. The best example that I can think of who might be deemed the finished article is Fergie but if he had left Man U earlier in his career for a different club with similar finance would the success he had at Man U been repeated? I'm just not convinced that Lambert is the right manager to take us forward but he nevertheless continues to receive an elongated sabbatical from the majority of the fan base even though there is little to base that faith on. He might however as you say grow with the club and I sincerely hope he does but apart from performances that you can count on one hand do you really see much evidence of that at the moment? Ahhhh now I get it........you have premonitions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 A pass for me (just) if we finish where we are now. 10th should be a realistic target for us for the rest of the season. I know it's not sexy or anything but after the terrible past 3 seasons it's certainly progress. I said this to a mate the other day who said "we should be 6th or 7th really". Who above us should we really be finishing above given the budget we currently operate under? Newcastle have a much better first 11 than we do, probably all their midfield players would walk into ours so I would rule them out even though there's always a feeling with them it will go tits up before long. Maybe with Saints having problems we can push them in the run IF we can string 2-3 wins together which we find near impossible. But the bigger long term problems remain, lack of home wins at VP and terrible performances to go with them. Lambert needs to find a way to fix this otherwise that will spell the end for him here as no Aston Villa manager should really survive just winning 3-4 home league games a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Out of 16 signings 4 have been of Premiership standard. Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan and Bacuna. Okore can't be judged yet. The rest have been poor although with a change in policy in going for more experienced players hopefully that ratio will now improve? "a change of policy" hahahaha The 18 players who left, cost double and earnt double of the incoming players. I'd be interested in your view of : How many of the 18 players who left were "Premiership standard" in your opinion? How many of the 18 players who left are better than those who arrived? How many of the 18 players who left are regulars in teams above us right now (I'll help you with this one - none of them) Your questions above have absolutely nothing to do with my point concerning a change of policy and i have answered that directly in the post above. How exactly do people define "Premiership standard" anyway? It just seems like a label that gets thrown at anybody that isn't a very good player. Mostly used as "players who could get into a Champions League side" i.e. 80% of players playing in the Premiership are not "Premiership Quality" Interested to see you providing a stat that 80% of players in the Premiership aren't what you would deem 'Premiership standard.' Missing the point again.......I can't be bothered to explain to you. Perhaps it will come to you in a vision later lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts