Paul Lambert

[Big_John_10]

But either tactic could win the game, it's only hindsight that proves absolute so what the hell is your point?

So we have to be happy with any approach to the game because it could have worked?

Seems a strange way to view things. Basically a way to excuse anything you want to.

We have to be happy with whatever approach our then Manager takes as guess what? You can't do shit about it and for all you know as much as you may disagree with tactic prior to completion of the match it could be the winning tactic.

It's only once the 90 minutes are up that we and the Manager will know if it worked or not.

Perhaps you'd be happier if Mystic Meg was managing us?

So don't share an opinion until something has 100% happened.

Close the site down.

[Xann]

The McLeish tunnel was only going one way, down.

 

It would have flooded in that last spell of wet weather.

[terrytini]

Seems to me we have broadly two viewpoints going on here.

A set of people who are saying that as they are happy with the broad picture, they will remain generally positive, and supportive, when things go wrong, and another 'set' who are saying they will be positive when things go right, and negative when they go wrong.

There is no doubt it is easier to be in the latter, but I am grateful that neither the owner, nor the majority of fans, are in it.

I am not at all sure how there can ever be meaningful progress where the latter view is taken.

[GENTLEMAN]

Frankly I think it will be very difficult for the likes of AVFC to ever do much better than 6-8 under the current system.

 

Do not stop dreaming Mike. This club will be back at the top again, we are too big to hold back forever. If we are stubborn and determined enough we will achieve success, it may take time but we will do it.

 

We like Southampton are feeder clubs for those above us. If any of our players break through and are seen to have real talent they will be poached. 

 

If clubs are seriously interested in our players, it is a good indication. As a last resort get the best price for players who wish to leave, on our terms and time. Re-invest the money to sign bigger and better players. It is all part of the process of becoming a successful club in the modern era.

[bannedfromHandV]

Yep, it's what Spurs did up until they spunked £100M+ on essentially 5 or 6 players who were all exactly the same!

[terrytini]

 

I can't believe people think it's a simple as just flicking a switch and playing the same way every game.

I don't think its simple. I do believe a manager can set out how he wants his team to play and too often we've relied on hoofing the ball long and failing to keep possession.

The Everton game is the perfect example of why your above point is rubbish.

How is it rubbish? There have been a lot of comments on here in the last few months which give off the message that Lambert somehow has the option of replicating performances like against Liverpool or West Brom but for some reason decides that he wants us to play poor, ineffective football.

He does have the option of choosing how this team plays. He's the manager. It won't always work and it won't always be brilliant but he can choose if we are going to keep the ball on the floor and attack or if we're going to defend and hit benteke in the air the minute we get the ball.

Like I said the Everton game was a perfect example.

I agree with BJ. We tend to play with a greater freedom against top teams, because there is very little expectation on Villa. Yet against more ordinary teams we play frustrating hoof ball because we fear losing, when we know that we should be taking points from the game.

 

It's Lambert's decision and too often this season he's got it wrong. We can play football, if and when the manager allows us to.  Our players aren't the best, but too often our tactics make them look a lot worse than they actually are.

But it isn't necessarily Lamberts 'decision' to 'play with greater freedom' - it could be that it is the players themselves who do, or don't do, that. And how do any of us 'know' why we have played hoofball when we have ? One thing for sure, if we played as well as we can do all the time we would be in the Top 5 - surely that is unreasonable and therefore, by definition, we should expect much poorer displays within the whole ?

Also, the logic of 'playing with greater freedom' would also apply to many other teams - so why don't they all do it ?

[bannedfromHandV]

 

 

 

But either tactic could win the game, it's only hindsight that proves absolute so what the hell is your point?

So we have to be happy with any approach to the game because it could have worked?

Seems a strange way to view things. Basically a way to excuse anything you want to.

We have to be happy with whatever approach our then Manager takes as guess what? You can't do shit about it and for all you know as much as you may disagree with tactic prior to completion of the match it could be the winning tactic.

It's only once the 90 minutes are up that we and the Manager will know if it worked or not.

Perhaps you'd be happier if Mystic Meg was managing us?

So don't share an opinion until something has 100% happened.

Close the site down.

 

 

No, what I'm saying is it's really effing easy to sit back and use hindsight to beat someone down -  which is what you do and have done for a significant period of time now

[Rovers13]

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

[Big_John_10]

Seems to me we have broadly two viewpoints going on here.

A set of people who are saying that as they are happy with the broad picture, they will remain generally positive, and supportive, when things go wrong, and another 'set' who are saying they will be positive when things go right, and negative when they go wrong.

There is no doubt it is easier to be in the latter, but I am grateful that neither the owner, nor the majority of fans, are in it.

I am not at all sure how there can ever be meaningful progress where the latter view is taken.

That's a nice way to have a dig at the group you obviously don't include yourself in.

I think its unlikely there's many that switch from positive to negative based on individual games. There are people who will give credit or blame on a game to game basis.

There are a group not pleased with the broad picture after nearly 2 years of lambert at the club. Doesn't mean they switch their view all the time.

And easier to be in the latter? I'd say its a lot easier to ignore evidence and continue to claim faith in the manager without questioning anything.

[Big_John_10]

But either tactic could win the game, it's only hindsight that proves absolute so what the hell is your point?

So we have to be happy with any approach to the game because it could have worked?

Seems a strange way to view things. Basically a way to excuse anything you want to.

We have to be happy with whatever approach our then Manager takes as guess what? You can't do shit about it and for all you know as much as you may disagree with tactic prior to completion of the match it could be the winning tactic.

It's only once the 90 minutes are up that we and the Manager will know if it worked or not.

Perhaps you'd be happier if Mystic Meg was managing us?

So don't share an opinion until something has 100% happened.

Close the site down.

No, what I'm saying is it's really effing easy to sit back and use hindsight to beat someone down - which is what you do and have done for a significant period of time now

Hindsigtht? Like last year when a few predicted a relegation battle and were laughed and mocked. That hindsight?

[Big_John_10]

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

[Stevo985]

 

 I'd say its a lot easier to ignore evidence and continue to claim faith in the manager without questioning anything.

 

It's a good thing that literally nobody on the site is doing that then

[suttonpaul]

I started calling him Captain Hindsight. lol

 

Regardless to pick up a few points here Everton weren't there for the taking we had injury troubles too and if memory serves me right we were winning until 70 odd mins.

 

Peoples views in the positive camp haven't changed after the last two games and I doubt peoples have from the negative camp either.

 

Lastly a lot of these discussions should be on the Lerner thread hence why I cant reply to the majority of them.

[Big_John_10]

I love this hindsight thing.

Hilarious.

[bannedfromHandV]

 

 

 

 

 

But either tactic could win the game, it's only hindsight that proves absolute so what the hell is your point?

So we have to be happy with any approach to the game because it could have worked?

Seems a strange way to view things. Basically a way to excuse anything you want to.

We have to be happy with whatever approach our then Manager takes as guess what? You can't do shit about it and for all you know as much as you may disagree with tactic prior to completion of the match it could be the winning tactic.

It's only once the 90 minutes are up that we and the Manager will know if it worked or not.

Perhaps you'd be happier if Mystic Meg was managing us?

So don't share an opinion until something has 100% happened.

Close the site down.

No, what I'm saying is it's really effing easy to sit back and use hindsight to beat someone down - which is what you do and have done for a significant period of time now

Hindsigtht? Like last year when a few predicted a relegation battle and were laughed and mocked. That hindsight?

 

 

Probably the same people who predicted the same again this year and will probably predict it again next year - theme?

[Big_John_10]

Peoples views in the positive camp haven't changed after the last two games and I doubt peoples have from the negative camp either.

This.

[Rovers13]

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

Villa had more injuries and key players out. Holt only started because gabby was injured.

[bannedfromHandV]

 

 

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

Villa had more injuries and key players out. Holt only started because gabby was injured.

 

 

No no no, that sounds like relatively well thought out reasoning?

 

Holt played because Lambert had no interest in winning that game, surely you must know that!?!?

[Big_John_10]

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

Villa had more injuries and key players out. Holt only started because gabby was injured.

No other options that Grant Holt?

We had gabby missing, who else?

The point was after 2 good results and performances we chose to go 3 at the back with Holt upfront. It shows how lambert wanted us to play in that game on the back of 2 excellent performances.

[Big_John_10]

I know this is a couple pages back, but I don't want to do a huge quote. How exactly were everton there for the taking? It was an away game against a far better side with better players, and villa actually had more players out injured than everton, even if villas injuries had less press.

Smashed in a local Derby and missing key players.

We'd just had two great results.

So we go ultra defensive with grant Holt upfront.

Villa had more injuries and key players out. Holt only started because gabby was injured.

No no no, that sounds like relatively well thought out reasoning?

Holt played because Lambert had no interest in winning that game, surely you must know that!?!?

Haha

Your arguments are awful. You seem to be suggesting we should all just nod and smile about everything because its what the manager chose to do. Ridiculous.