Paul Lambert

[Big_John_10]

How can breaking a 140 year old club record and losing 47% of the time be classed as average?

That means **** all in the grand scheme of things. The latter stat is far more important.

In the grand scheme of things it means we've lost 10 times at home this season. That doesn't mean much to you?

[Isa]

Didn't the accounts that were published prove that Lambert had understated players transfer fees?

Correct.

[Mantis]

 

 

How can breaking a 140 year old club record and losing 47% of the time be classed as average?

That means **** all in the grand scheme of things. The latter stat is far more important.

In the grand scheme of things it means we've lost 10 times at home this season. That doesn't mean much to you?

 

On its own it doesn't mean much. What if we won the other 8 home games and then won half of our away games? That would've been a very good season despite breaking this record.

 

Obviously we haven't done that but my point is that people keep mentioning these records but most of them are mostly meaningless without context anyway. I honestly don't give a **** that we've broken some old record, what matters is that we haven't amassed that many points.

[Villastine]

 

Didn't the accounts that were published prove that Lambert had understated players transfer fees?

Correct.

 

 

Link???

[Isa]

Didn't the accounts that were published prove that Lambert had understated players transfer fees?

Correct.

 

Link???

For what?

[Electric Avenue]

How can breaking a 140 year old club record and losing 47% of the time be classed as average?

That means **** all in the grand scheme of things. The latter stat is far more important.

In the grand scheme of things it means we've lost 10 times at home this season. That doesn't mean much to you?

It's actually x 12 John10

[villan_007]

 

 

How can breaking a 140 year old club record and losing 47% of the time be classed as average?

That means **** all in the grand scheme of things. The latter stat is far more important.

In the grand scheme of things it means we've lost 10 times at home this season. That doesn't mean much to you?

 

 

It means sweet FA really, but it's relevant to John because he wants Lambert out.

 

It means nothing because before the wins against Norwich and Chelski we hadn't won back to back games for 4 and something yrs, a stat that was in place before Lambert turned up. So lambert fixed that stat. Does he get praise? course not.

 

It's more important to concentrate on the negatives.

Edited April 9, 2014 by villan_007

[Electric Avenue]

That's because the negatives far outweigh any positives. Remember - grand scheme of things !?

Let's not sweat the small stuff like achieving a run of 2 yes 2 consecutive home wins

[shaggy]

 

Clearly since Lambert has been here there has been improvement in one area only and that is to rid ourselves of players who weren't deserving of their fat luxurious contracts.

Should that be enough to be apathetic towards his result record when you also factor in the chairman's lack of investment in the team compared to other Premiership teams?

To answer the first question any other manager taking the job would have had to deal with the wage issue and would have acted accordingly so I'm not sure that should be something you can base any defence of Lambert on. The follow on argument from that is well while removing those players and revamping the squad he has managed to keep us in the Premiership.

The opportunity to revamp a squad with reasonable funding, to be allowed to build your own team is something that most managers would see as a welcome challenge, certainly a manager who would want to enhance his reputation and knowing that you were following a manager who was ultimately hated by the majority of the fan base would be seen by many as a no lose situation.

Considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild and backing his own judgement in the transfer market the manager and chairman would have at the very least have expected to retain our Premiership status. I mean like any other manager coming into Villa Park he would not have expected to worry about relegation so managing to keep us in the Premiership with some very poor teams around us would have been a starting point of expectancy and not really something to be praised for.

I've often wondered to myself what was Lambert's expectations when he came to our club. He would have come here with confidence knowing that he promoted Norwich and with very little investment managed to get them to mid table playing some good football while beating us with comfort in his last game.

Since we have been ever present in the Premier League there is no praise here for being promoted and certainly no praise for being in a relegation battle in season one and lying just above the relegation zone in season two. So in his own mind has he deemed himself a failure at Villa Park or does he gage success by replicating his placement with Norwich?

Reading his comments in the press one would assume that he realises the expectation levels here are higher here than they were at Norwich so with that in mind he must be particularly disappointed with our performances in his second season with us as we are currently heading in the wrong direction yet again.

So with very little money and with an inferior squad to our own he overachieved at Norwich. With better players at our club and 40+m to spend achieving one relegation dogfight and struggling to stay mid table he has been deemed by some on here as doing a good job for this club.

You then wonder why those who have had the nerve to criticise Lambert get so exasperated with the stated points of defence above.

 

I don't understand some of your points here.  For example; Lambert has improved Villa by removing players on "fat luxurious contracts", but should also do better "considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild".  Which is it?  He should've let them go or he should've kept them?

 

Following on from this, you stated that Lambert shouldn't be praised - he's not being praised!  This isn't a black or white situation between fans of "he's shit sack him" or "he's the messiah, keep him forever"; the fact is that Lambert has done an average job.  A job that was to be expected but he has neither failed at nor exceeded.  You could certainly argue it's been worse than hoped for - I'm sure most people (the manager included) would agree - but it hasn't been a mitigating disaster.

 

The bit in bold; why did Roberto Martinez turn down this easy, dream job for any manager wishing to enhance their reputation?  It's a no lose situation after all, perfect. He must be mad to have passed up on the opportunity.

 

The bit in underlined italics; we're in 13th place.  This isn't lying just above the relegation zone; we're closer to the top half.  By all means argue on the aesthetic value of the football we play, the poor results at home or the disappointing cup defeats.  In terms of real movement, we're placed higher in the table and are on a better financial footing.  Lambert isn't a genius for this by any stretch, but it's happening.

 

Maybe heading up the table is moving in the wrong direction for some people because it means Lambert won't be sacked, though?  Haters gonna hate.

 

 

All of this overlooks so many different factors as well such as the time it takes for new players to get used to the Premier League or for an entirely new squad to gel and settle together.  Electric_Avenue asked somewhere further back in the thread about timescales for "pro-Lambert fans" - as has been said many, many times; this summer is key and Lambert has until Christmas (if seriously relegation threatened) / the end of next season in my eyes.  If there's no improvement over 3 seasons, that's a major worry.  However, I definitely don't expect us to be tearing up trees after a season and 2/3's.

 

I think this is the problem with football; insta-success and history matter too much.  There's a pretty unrealistic view on "where teams should be".  David Moyes to be sacked after 1 season because Man Utd are 7th for example.  Change takes time and stability is incredibly important in football - just look at the bottom of the league to be reminded of this.

 

All fair questions and its refreshing to see them asked without sarcasm or an attempt at point scoring.

 

To answer your first question.

 

Is Hutton any worse than Bennett or Luna? Could we have used Hutton on a temporary basis until better became available? Could we have used Bent and retained Fonzy instead of purchasing Kozak and Bowery? Could we have kept faith with Albrighton instead of purchasing Tonev? Could we have got more out of Given than signing Steer? Was Bannan much worse than Sylla or KEA. 

 

Yes the issue is wages but Bent, Given and Hutton are still on our books while paying the wages of new players. If we couldn't sell those players would it not have been better to try and utilize them rather than sticking them into a bomb squad? Arguably those players are still better than the new signings with the exception of Benteke. I think the answer is somewhere in between the two keeping some of those players while letting others go which he did with Cuellar and Collins. 

 

The problem has been that those players have been replaced with players of inferior ability and that's why we have struggled.

 

If you look back through the site gentleman, Lambert has been praise for doing a good job.

 

Yes i expected someone to come back to me about Martinez and its a fair point. I'm not party to the circumstances to explain why Martinez turned us down. It could have been a number of reasons including that he simply didn't fancy working under another budget restriction or it could have been that he was informed that the Everton job was going to become available and he would be offered it. You also have to consider that Lambert was given a fair whack of money in his first transfer window with us so it may not have been just about the budget restrictions?

 

We're actually starting to drop our placement again Gentleman and it has been anything but stable this season with our present form also deteriorating. If we lose against Palace then we will be back in trouble again. 

Edited April 9, 2014 by shaggy

[villan_007]

That's because the negatives far outweigh any positives. Remember - grand scheme of things !?

Let's not sweat the small stuff like achieving a run of 2 yes 2 consecutive home wins

 

If you don't take care of the small things, the big things won't follow. It still happened. It wasn't his fault that it didn't happen before he arrived. It's been done now.

[villan_007]

 

 

Clearly since Lambert has been here there has been improvement in one area only and that is to rid ourselves of players who weren't deserving of their fat luxurious contracts.

Should that be enough to be apathetic towards his result record when you also factor in the chairman's lack of investment in the team compared to other Premiership teams?

To answer the first question any other manager taking the job would have had to deal with the wage issue and would have acted accordingly so I'm not sure that should be something you can base any defence of Lambert on. The follow on argument from that is well while removing those players and revamping the squad he has managed to keep us in the Premiership.

The opportunity to revamp a squad with reasonable funding, to be allowed to build your own team is something that most managers would see as a welcome challenge, certainly a manager who would want to enhance his reputation and knowing that you were following a manager who was ultimately hated by the majority of the fan base would be seen by many as a no lose situation.

Considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild and backing his own judgement in the transfer market the manager and chairman would have at the very least have expected to retain our Premiership status. I mean like any other manager coming into Villa Park he would not have expected to worry about relegation so managing to keep us in the Premiership with some very poor teams around us would have been a starting point of expectancy and not really something to be praised for.

I've often wondered to myself what was Lambert's expectations when he came to our club. He would have come here with confidence knowing that he promoted Norwich and with very little investment managed to get them to mid table playing some good football while beating us with comfort in his last game.

Since we have been ever present in the Premier League there is no praise here for being promoted and certainly no praise for being in a relegation battle in season one and lying just above the relegation zone in season two. So in his own mind has he deemed himself a failure at Villa Park or does he gage success by replicating his placement with Norwich?

Reading his comments in the press one would assume that he realises the expectation levels here are higher here than they were at Norwich so with that in mind he must be particularly disappointed with our performances in his second season with us as we are currently heading in the wrong direction yet again.

So with very little money and with an inferior squad to our own he overachieved at Norwich. With better players at our club and 40+m to spend achieving one relegation dogfight and struggling to stay mid table he has been deemed by some on here as doing a good job for this club.

You then wonder why those who have had the nerve to criticise Lambert get so exasperated with the stated points of defence above.

 

I don't understand some of your points here.  For example; Lambert has improved Villa by removing players on "fat luxurious contracts", but should also do better "considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild".  Which is it?  He should've let them go or he should've kept them?

 

Following on from this, you stated that Lambert shouldn't be praised - he's not being praised!  This isn't a black or white situation between fans of "he's shit sack him" or "he's the messiah, keep him forever"; the fact is that Lambert has done an average job.  A job that was to be expected but he has neither failed at nor exceeded.  You could certainly argue it's been worse than hoped for - I'm sure most people (the manager included) would agree - but it hasn't been a mitigating disaster.

 

The bit in bold; why did Roberto Martinez turn down this easy, dream job for any manager wishing to enhance their reputation?  It's a no lose situation after all, perfect. He must be mad to have passed up on the opportunity.

 

The bit in underlined italics; we're in 13th place.  This isn't lying just above the relegation zone; we're closer to the top half.  By all means argue on the aesthetic value of the football we play, the poor results at home or the disappointing cup defeats.  In terms of real movement, we're placed higher in the table and are on a better financial footing.  Lambert isn't a genius for this by any stretch, but it's happening.

 

Maybe heading up the table is moving in the wrong direction for some people because it means Lambert won't be sacked, though?  Haters gonna hate.

 

 

All of this overlooks so many different factors as well such as the time it takes for new players to get used to the Premier League or for an entirely new squad to gel and settle together.  Electric_Avenue asked somewhere further back in the thread about timescales for "pro-Lambert fans" - as has been said many, many times; this summer is key and Lambert has until Christmas (if seriously relegation threatened) / the end of next season in my eyes.  If there's no improvement over 3 seasons, that's a major worry.  However, I definitely don't expect us to be tearing up trees after a season and 2/3's.

 

I think this is the problem with football; insta-success and history matter too much.  There's a pretty unrealistic view on "where teams should be".  David Moyes to be sacked after 1 season because Man Utd are 7th for example.  Change takes time and stability is incredibly important in football - just look at the bottom of the league to be reminded of this.

 

All fair questions and its refreshing to see them asked without sarcasm or an attempt at point scoring.

 

The FB situation. Is Hutton any worse than Bennett or Luna? Could we have used Hutton on a temporary basis until better became available? Could we have used Bent and retained Fonzy instead of purchasing Kozak and Bowery? Could we have kept faith with Albrighton instead of purchasing Tonev? Could we have got more out of Given than signing Steer? Was Bannan much worse than Sylla or KEA. 

 

Yes the issue is wages but Bent, Given and Hutton are still on our books while paying the wages of new players. If we couldn't sell those players would it not have been better to try and utilize them rather than sticking them into a bomb squad? Arguably those players are still better than the new signings with the exception of Benteke. I think the answer is somewhere in between the two keeping some of those players while letting others go which he did with Cuellar and Collins. 

 

The problem has been that those players have been replaced with players of inferior ability and that's why we have struggled.

 

If you look back through the site gentleman, Lambert has been praise for doing a good job.

 

Yes i expected someone to come back to me about Martinez and its a fair point. I'm not party to the circumstances to explain why Martinez turned us down. It could have been a number of reasons including that he simply didn't fancy working under another budget restriction or it could have been that he was informed that the Everton job was going to become available and he would be offered it. You also have to consider that Lambert was given a fair whack of money in his first transfer window with us so it may not have been just about the budget restrictions?

 

We're actually starting to drop our placement again Gentleman and it has been anything but stable this season with our present form also deteriorating. If we lose against Palace then we will be back in trouble again. 

 

 

If lambert came in and played Hutton at left back then I'd want him out before he started.

 

Also I wouldn't call £20mill a fair whack of money for the Villa job.

[Electric Avenue]

That's because the negatives far outweigh any positives. Remember - grand scheme of things !?

Let's not sweat the small stuff like achieving a run of 2 yes 2 consecutive home wins

 

If you don't take care of the small things, the big things won't follow. It still happened. It wasn't his fault that it didn't happen before he arrived. It's been done now.

Are you seriously clinging onto that tenuous stat

[villan_007]

 

 

That's because the negatives far outweigh any positives. Remember - grand scheme of things !?

Let's not sweat the small stuff like achieving a run of 2 yes 2 consecutive home wins

 

If you don't take care of the small things, the big things won't follow. It still happened. It wasn't his fault that it didn't happen before he arrived. It's been done now.

Are you seriously clinging onto that tenuous stat

 

 

I'm not clinging onto anything - I'm just using it as an example of records and how really they don't mean anything.  They are broken all the time at different points in time. This isn't athletics.

[shaggy]

 

 

 

Clearly since Lambert has been here there has been improvement in one area only and that is to rid ourselves of players who weren't deserving of their fat luxurious contracts.

Should that be enough to be apathetic towards his result record when you also factor in the chairman's lack of investment in the team compared to other Premiership teams?

To answer the first question any other manager taking the job would have had to deal with the wage issue and would have acted accordingly so I'm not sure that should be something you can base any defence of Lambert on. The follow on argument from that is well while removing those players and revamping the squad he has managed to keep us in the Premiership.

The opportunity to revamp a squad with reasonable funding, to be allowed to build your own team is something that most managers would see as a welcome challenge, certainly a manager who would want to enhance his reputation and knowing that you were following a manager who was ultimately hated by the majority of the fan base would be seen by many as a no lose situation.

Considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild and backing his own judgement in the transfer market the manager and chairman would have at the very least have expected to retain our Premiership status. I mean like any other manager coming into Villa Park he would not have expected to worry about relegation so managing to keep us in the Premiership with some very poor teams around us would have been a starting point of expectancy and not really something to be praised for.

I've often wondered to myself what was Lambert's expectations when he came to our club. He would have come here with confidence knowing that he promoted Norwich and with very little investment managed to get them to mid table playing some good football while beating us with comfort in his last game.

Since we have been ever present in the Premier League there is no praise here for being promoted and certainly no praise for being in a relegation battle in season one and lying just above the relegation zone in season two. So in his own mind has he deemed himself a failure at Villa Park or does he gage success by replicating his placement with Norwich?

Reading his comments in the press one would assume that he realises the expectation levels here are higher here than they were at Norwich so with that in mind he must be particularly disappointed with our performances in his second season with us as we are currently heading in the wrong direction yet again.

So with very little money and with an inferior squad to our own he overachieved at Norwich. With better players at our club and 40+m to spend achieving one relegation dogfight and struggling to stay mid table he has been deemed by some on here as doing a good job for this club.

You then wonder why those who have had the nerve to criticise Lambert get so exasperated with the stated points of defence above.

 

I don't understand some of your points here.  For example; Lambert has improved Villa by removing players on "fat luxurious contracts", but should also do better "considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild".  Which is it?  He should've let them go or he should've kept them?

 

Following on from this, you stated that Lambert shouldn't be praised - he's not being praised!  This isn't a black or white situation between fans of "he's shit sack him" or "he's the messiah, keep him forever"; the fact is that Lambert has done an average job.  A job that was to be expected but he has neither failed at nor exceeded.  You could certainly argue it's been worse than hoped for - I'm sure most people (the manager included) would agree - but it hasn't been a mitigating disaster.

 

The bit in bold; why did Roberto Martinez turn down this easy, dream job for any manager wishing to enhance their reputation?  It's a no lose situation after all, perfect. He must be mad to have passed up on the opportunity.

 

The bit in underlined italics; we're in 13th place.  This isn't lying just above the relegation zone; we're closer to the top half.  By all means argue on the aesthetic value of the football we play, the poor results at home or the disappointing cup defeats.  In terms of real movement, we're placed higher in the table and are on a better financial footing.  Lambert isn't a genius for this by any stretch, but it's happening.

 

Maybe heading up the table is moving in the wrong direction for some people because it means Lambert won't be sacked, though?  Haters gonna hate.

 

 

All of this overlooks so many different factors as well such as the time it takes for new players to get used to the Premier League or for an entirely new squad to gel and settle together.  Electric_Avenue asked somewhere further back in the thread about timescales for "pro-Lambert fans" - as has been said many, many times; this summer is key and Lambert has until Christmas (if seriously relegation threatened) / the end of next season in my eyes.  If there's no improvement over 3 seasons, that's a major worry.  However, I definitely don't expect us to be tearing up trees after a season and 2/3's.

 

I think this is the problem with football; insta-success and history matter too much.  There's a pretty unrealistic view on "where teams should be".  David Moyes to be sacked after 1 season because Man Utd are 7th for example.  Change takes time and stability is incredibly important in football - just look at the bottom of the league to be reminded of this.

 

All fair questions and its refreshing to see them asked without sarcasm or an attempt at point scoring.

 

The FB situation. Is Hutton any worse than Bennett or Luna? Could we have used Hutton on a temporary basis until better became available? Could we have used Bent and retained Fonzy instead of purchasing Kozak and Bowery? Could we have kept faith with Albrighton instead of purchasing Tonev? Could we have got more out of Given than signing Steer? Was Bannan much worse than Sylla or KEA. 

 

Yes the issue is wages but Bent, Given and Hutton are still on our books while paying the wages of new players. If we couldn't sell those players would it not have been better to try and utilize them rather than sticking them into a bomb squad? Arguably those players are still better than the new signings with the exception of Benteke. I think the answer is somewhere in between the two keeping some of those players while letting others go which he did with Cuellar and Collins. 

 

The problem has been that those players have been replaced with players of inferior ability and that's why we have struggled.

 

If you look back through the site gentleman, Lambert has been praise for doing a good job.

 

Yes i expected someone to come back to me about Martinez and its a fair point. I'm not party to the circumstances to explain why Martinez turned us down. It could have been a number of reasons including that he simply didn't fancy working under another budget restriction or it could have been that he was informed that the Everton job was going to become available and he would be offered it. You also have to consider that Lambert was given a fair whack of money in his first transfer window with us so it may not have been just about the budget restrictions?

 

We're actually starting to drop our placement again Gentleman and it has been anything but stable this season with our present form also deteriorating. If we lose against Palace then we will be back in trouble again. 

 

 

If lambert came in and played Hutton at left back then I'd want him out before he started.

 

Also I wouldn't call £20mill a fair whack of money for the Villa job.

 

So on the basis of playing one player you would have wanted Lambert sacked at the start of last season while then being prepared to stick with him through one relegation dogfight and hovering above the relegation places this season?

 

If he had concentrated on our weaknesses particularly in midfield while keeping more of the players that were here then 20m was a decent first window budget. 

[shaggy]

 

 

 

That's because the negatives far outweigh any positives. Remember - grand scheme of things !?

Let's not sweat the small stuff like achieving a run of 2 yes 2 consecutive home wins

 

If you don't take care of the small things, the big things won't follow. It still happened. It wasn't his fault that it didn't happen before he arrived. It's been done now.

Are you seriously clinging onto that tenuous stat

 

 

I'm not clinging onto anything - I'm just using it as an example of records and how really they don't mean anything.  They are broken all the time at different points in time. This isn't athletics.

 

Yet reading back through this topic some posters regularly put our away form forward as evidence to defend Lambert. Maybe its just those records which are acceptable to you as stats? 

[Big_John_10]

2 wins in a row!! I can see why he might be getting a new deal now.

[cbr600rr]

£££££ PL has had 20m every season-correct? martinez is a mystery for me..he or the "football know" must know that the owner is not bothered about the club..

 

you carnt tell me martinez is getting 20m a year to blow at everton. loan signings at everton has put them 5th,everton will not spend 20-30m every year so why did martinez even talk to faulkner?

[villan_007]

 

 

 

 

Clearly since Lambert has been here there has been improvement in one area only and that is to rid ourselves of players who weren't deserving of their fat luxurious contracts.

Should that be enough to be apathetic towards his result record when you also factor in the chairman's lack of investment in the team compared to other Premiership teams?

To answer the first question any other manager taking the job would have had to deal with the wage issue and would have acted accordingly so I'm not sure that should be something you can base any defence of Lambert on. The follow on argument from that is well while removing those players and revamping the squad he has managed to keep us in the Premiership.

The opportunity to revamp a squad with reasonable funding, to be allowed to build your own team is something that most managers would see as a welcome challenge, certainly a manager who would want to enhance his reputation and knowing that you were following a manager who was ultimately hated by the majority of the fan base would be seen by many as a no lose situation.

Considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild and backing his own judgement in the transfer market the manager and chairman would have at the very least have expected to retain our Premiership status. I mean like any other manager coming into Villa Park he would not have expected to worry about relegation so managing to keep us in the Premiership with some very poor teams around us would have been a starting point of expectancy and not really something to be praised for.

I've often wondered to myself what was Lambert's expectations when he came to our club. He would have come here with confidence knowing that he promoted Norwich and with very little investment managed to get them to mid table playing some good football while beating us with comfort in his last game.

Since we have been ever present in the Premier League there is no praise here for being promoted and certainly no praise for being in a relegation battle in season one and lying just above the relegation zone in season two. So in his own mind has he deemed himself a failure at Villa Park or does he gage success by replicating his placement with Norwich?

Reading his comments in the press one would assume that he realises the expectation levels here are higher here than they were at Norwich so with that in mind he must be particularly disappointed with our performances in his second season with us as we are currently heading in the wrong direction yet again.

So with very little money and with an inferior squad to our own he overachieved at Norwich. With better players at our club and 40+m to spend achieving one relegation dogfight and struggling to stay mid table he has been deemed by some on here as doing a good job for this club.

You then wonder why those who have had the nerve to criticise Lambert get so exasperated with the stated points of defence above.

 

I don't understand some of your points here.  For example; Lambert has improved Villa by removing players on "fat luxurious contracts", but should also do better "considering the players that Lambert had at his disposal before starting to rebuild".  Which is it?  He should've let them go or he should've kept them?

 

Following on from this, you stated that Lambert shouldn't be praised - he's not being praised!  This isn't a black or white situation between fans of "he's shit sack him" or "he's the messiah, keep him forever"; the fact is that Lambert has done an average job.  A job that was to be expected but he has neither failed at nor exceeded.  You could certainly argue it's been worse than hoped for - I'm sure most people (the manager included) would agree - but it hasn't been a mitigating disaster.

 

The bit in bold; why did Roberto Martinez turn down this easy, dream job for any manager wishing to enhance their reputation?  It's a no lose situation after all, perfect. He must be mad to have passed up on the opportunity.

 

The bit in underlined italics; we're in 13th place.  This isn't lying just above the relegation zone; we're closer to the top half.  By all means argue on the aesthetic value of the football we play, the poor results at home or the disappointing cup defeats.  In terms of real movement, we're placed higher in the table and are on a better financial footing.  Lambert isn't a genius for this by any stretch, but it's happening.

 

Maybe heading up the table is moving in the wrong direction for some people because it means Lambert won't be sacked, though?  Haters gonna hate.

 

 

All of this overlooks so many different factors as well such as the time it takes for new players to get used to the Premier League or for an entirely new squad to gel and settle together.  Electric_Avenue asked somewhere further back in the thread about timescales for "pro-Lambert fans" - as has been said many, many times; this summer is key and Lambert has until Christmas (if seriously relegation threatened) / the end of next season in my eyes.  If there's no improvement over 3 seasons, that's a major worry.  However, I definitely don't expect us to be tearing up trees after a season and 2/3's.

 

I think this is the problem with football; insta-success and history matter too much.  There's a pretty unrealistic view on "where teams should be".  David Moyes to be sacked after 1 season because Man Utd are 7th for example.  Change takes time and stability is incredibly important in football - just look at the bottom of the league to be reminded of this.

 

All fair questions and its refreshing to see them asked without sarcasm or an attempt at point scoring.

 

The FB situation. Is Hutton any worse than Bennett or Luna? Could we have used Hutton on a temporary basis until better became available? Could we have used Bent and retained Fonzy instead of purchasing Kozak and Bowery? Could we have kept faith with Albrighton instead of purchasing Tonev? Could we have got more out of Given than signing Steer? Was Bannan much worse than Sylla or KEA. 

 

Yes the issue is wages but Bent, Given and Hutton are still on our books while paying the wages of new players. If we couldn't sell those players would it not have been better to try and utilize them rather than sticking them into a bomb squad? Arguably those players are still better than the new signings with the exception of Benteke. I think the answer is somewhere in between the two keeping some of those players while letting others go which he did with Cuellar and Collins. 

 

The problem has been that those players have been replaced with players of inferior ability and that's why we have struggled.

 

If you look back through the site gentleman, Lambert has been praise for doing a good job.

 

Yes i expected someone to come back to me about Martinez and its a fair point. I'm not party to the circumstances to explain why Martinez turned us down. It could have been a number of reasons including that he simply didn't fancy working under another budget restriction or it could have been that he was informed that the Everton job was going to become available and he would be offered it. You also have to consider that Lambert was given a fair whack of money in his first transfer window with us so it may not have been just about the budget restrictions?

 

We're actually starting to drop our placement again Gentleman and it has been anything but stable this season with our present form also deteriorating. If we lose against Palace then we will be back in trouble again. 

 

 

If lambert came in and played Hutton at left back then I'd want him out before he started.

 

Also I wouldn't call £20mill a fair whack of money for the Villa job.

 

So on the basis of playing one player you would have wanted Lambert sacked at the start of last season while then being prepared to stick with him through one relegation dogfight and hovering above the relegation places this season?

 

If he had concentrated on our weaknesses particularly in midfield while keeping more of the players that were here then 20m was a decent first window budget. 

 

 

I wouldn't have been happy at all - see I understand where you and others are coming from, I really do. It is far from awesome at the moment.

 

However, I also remember the dogs abuse that hutton and the bomb squad got the season before, the finger pointing, the get out of our club, not fit to wear the shirt stuff.  I remember my own relief knowing that Lambert had come in and these overpaid players, who lets be honest had no desire to do well for Villa where all going to be shipped out.

 

So it confuses me now that these same players are being discussed as being the answer to our current problems, how we could have used them? why would we keep using them when they were so shite the season before? everyone wanted them gone.

 

As for midfield, we simply had no chance of getting the calibre of player in we wanted. Sissoko being one example. It's a position that has eluded us since he came. You can't magic a player up out of thin air if there isn't one availble.

 

£20 mill for me was a joke and probably the reason so many left the interview chuckling.

[villan_007]

2 wins in a row!! I can see why he might be getting a new deal now.

 

I'm not by any means calling this an achievement - I was using it as example of records.

[The_Steve]

£££££ PL has had 20m every season-correct? martinez is a mystery for me..he or the "football know" must know that the owner is not bothered about the club..

 

you carnt tell me martinez is getting 20m a year to blow at everton. loan signings at everton has put them 5th,everton will not spend 20-30m every year so why did martinez even talk to faulkner?

 

Martinez never spoke to Villa at any point.