shaggy Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Put it this way, if Rodgers was at Villa now, and Lambert was at Liverpool, we'd be higher in the league, and they'd be a lot lower. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Lambert is a better manager than Rodgers. If Rodgers had have came to Villa and tried to get us playing decent football straight away like he did with Liverpool, we probably would have had a season similar to the one with Houllier and we may have been relegated. Rodgers at Liverpool is a good fit because they have quality players there already, could have been a disaster here. Yet he has purchased well in the transfer market and turned Liverpool around in the same period that it has taken lambert to show very little improvement. Again I recognise the difference in budget and player available but Rodgers would have wanted players at our club who can pass and move well and would have made better choices in the transfer market than lambert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Darren, if it were that easy, why didn't Martinez's successors instantly get Swansea promoted? Also, he has had money at Liverpool but hardly enough to expect him to turn them into genuine title-contenders in such a short space of time. Incredibly harsh post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Put it this way, if Rodgers was at Villa now, and Lambert was at Liverpool, we'd be higher in the league, and they'd be a lot lower. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Lambert is a better manager than Rodgers. If Rodgers had have came to Villa and tried to get us playing decent football straight away like he did with Liverpool, we probably would have had a season similar to the one with Houllier and we may have been relegated. Rodgers at Liverpool is a good fit because they have quality players there already, could have been a disaster here. Good managers start by getting the best out of what's available to them. Lambert has failed to do that with just about every player he inherited, with the exception of the odd one or two like Delph. So do you think the squad we have is better than one that should be 12th? If so, what position do you think we should be in? That question has been asked numerous times, but not answered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2014 Good managers start by getting the best out of what's available to them. Lambert has failed to do that with just about every player he inherited, with the exception of the odd one or two like Delph. I agree they should but that is also dependant upon the players they inherit having the ability and/or desire to improve. But you can't really accuse Lambert of failing to improve players with an exception of the ones he has improved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggy Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Rodgers is the luckiest manager to have worked in the PL. Gets Martinez's finished Swansea, lets them carry on playing the exact same way. Gets Liverpool with Gerrard and Suarez and owners desperate to spend money. Lambert built Norwich to be a competitive PL team and finished on the same points as Swansea. Rodgers is no mug, but he's a no better manager than Lambert. That last sentence just shows how there is a lambert chauvinism on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2014 That last sentence just shows how there is a lambert chauvinism on here. Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Ultimately I can understand the veracity of the defence of Lambert from certain quarters . Ultimately you either hold your hands up and say "yes I was wrong" or you keep going in denial. It's one of the most challenging aspects of the human intellect, admitting you are wrong. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I would think that a decent manager, inheriting some of the players that Lambert did, and then being given £40m to spend, should be capable of playing much better football than that served up under Lambert and would be looking at challenging for the 8th place that Southampton and Newcastle are fighting over. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StefanAVFC Posted March 30, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted March 30, 2014 Ultimately I can understand the veracity of the defence of Lambert from certain quarters . Ultimately you either hold your hands up and say "yes I was wrong" or you keep going in denial. It's one of the most challenging aspects of the human intellect, admitting you are wrong. What a load of condescending, self-entitled tripe. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandaq Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 49 Goals on Sturridge and Suarez so far. Martinez failed at Wigan, Lambert did not at Norwich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted March 30, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30, 2014 Put it this way, if Rodgers was at Villa now, and Lambert was at Liverpool, we'd be higher in the league, and they'd be a lot lower. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Lambert is a better manager than Rodgers. If Rodgers had have came to Villa and tried to get us playing decent football straight away like he did with Liverpool, we probably would have had a season similar to the one with Houllier and we may have been relegated. Rodgers at Liverpool is a good fit because they have quality players there already, could have been a disaster here. Yet he has purchased well in the transfer market and turned Liverpool around in the same period that it has taken lambert to show very little improvement. Again I recognise the difference in budget and player available but Rodgers would have wanted players at our club who can pass and move well and would have made better choices in the transfer market than lambert. And these cheap players who are good on the ball may have seen us relegated. We may have gone out and bought 2 Makouns because we cant attract a Coutinho. Rodgers has one way of playing, and it's a great approach to the game, but you need to have players capable of playing that way. Liverpool struggled in the first half of the season last year whilst adapting this new approach. That's with players like Gerrard, Suarez, Allen, Downing(lol). Imagine how bad we would have been. Maybe it would have all been rosy and we would have played fantastic football, but I strongly suspect we would be a lot closer to Wigan than Liverpool. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post PieFacE Posted March 30, 2014 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted March 30, 2014 Ultimately I can understand the veracity of the defence of Lambert from certain quarters . Ultimately you either hold your hands up and say "yes I was wrong" or you keep going in denial. It's one of the most challenging aspects of the human intellect, admitting you are wrong. Oh dear, what a load of toss. 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Darren, if it were that easy, why didn't Martinez's successors instantly get Swansea promoted? Also, he has had money at Liverpool but hardly enough to expect him to turn them into genuine title-contenders in such a short space of time. Incredibly harsh post. It's not that simple I agree. But when battling such ridiculously short-sighted posts about 'Rodgers being the better manager because Liverpool are doing well', I'm offering an alternative viewpoint. Rodgers did very well with Swansea in the same way Lambert did very well with Norwich. They were both well thought of as young up and coming managers after their first season in the PL. Anything that has happened since then is completely and utterly inconsequential to any comparison. One is at a rich club with a huge draw and already world-class players. The other is at a bottomed-out cash-strapped club attempting to rebuild after overreaching. It baffles me that Lambert agreed to come here if he had any idea of the constraints he was going to work inside. Edited March 30, 2014 by darrenm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 If all we want is to play turgid football while being happy to stay up, we may as well have kept McLeish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 It baffles me that Lambert agreed to come here if he had any idea of the constraints he was going to work inside. I think it's because he isn't very bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 It baffles me that Lambert agreed to come here if he had any idea of the constraints he was going to work inside. I think it's because he isn't very bright. That may well be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 It baffles me that Lambert agreed to come here if he had any idea of the constraints he was going to work inside. I think it's because he isn't very bright. Personal attack because..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted March 30, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) If all we want is to play turgid football while being happy to stay up, we may as well have kept McLeish. But it's about progression and building blocks isn't it? I personally believe if we can make 2 or 3 quality additions in the summer our first 11 will be pretty competitive. The year after we purchase 2 or 3 quality players and then our squad is competitive. Same again the year after. As our squad gets better, the football gets better and we start moving up the table. Edited March 30, 2014 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Spoony Posted March 30, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted March 30, 2014 Ultimately I can understand the veracity of the defence of Lambert from certain quarters . Ultimately you either hold your hands up and say "yes I was wrong" or you keep going in denial. It's one of the most challenging aspects of the human intellect, admitting you are wrong. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I don't get this lambert hasn't had enough time argument. Lets not forget that Brendan Rodgers has been in charge of Liverpool for nigh on the same time (give or took a week). Now of course he has far superior squad and budget to work within and the remits of the job are different. But he has managed to set the team up to perform consistently, he has managed to raise the performances of those players and he has established a good team identity who all know how to play together. I fail to see that with lambert. Kinda answered yourself as to why we don't perform consistently. It's pretty simple really, we just aren't good enough to do so. If it was as easy for us to perform consistently as it is for the teams who spend big money and have better players, then said teams wouldn't actually need to spend such amounts Irrelevant of the differing situations, I would still expect individual players to improve and I would expect to see a consistent style of play there. How many players have improved from last season? Delph, Vlaar, kea and maybe Westwood. Clark looked bette at the start of the season but has fallen back again. Lowton, Benteke (ok he has had injuries), Weimann sylla have all been considerably worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts