andyh Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 you are comparing our current manager to appointments made 30 years ago !!!! Why not go a bit further and include Barton and Saunders ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan501 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Lambert will be gone at end of westham game fingers crossed cant believe im saying this a big defeat at home is needed then defeat at west spam and hes gone because after its saints burnley and palace and he will not get wins there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I respect your posts Dickie but can't agree in any way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 What if I still have the opinion that I support the manager and that I do not think I am "wrong" to use your term . Am I to believe that the converse of your post applies, that there is shame in that and the only redemption I can get is bowing to a different opinion than I hold? At this stage I still have support for the manager. That is a stance I am entitled to hold , there is no shame in that either. Indeed you are and I was merely challenging your stance, which is the basic purpose of a forum I believe. As for 'being wrong', I was referring specifically to your claim that Lambert is the best manager we've had in the last 30 years. Do you still believe this? If yes, then may I ask your reasoning as to why? I posted a long post some time back to justify that stance, cant remember all of it but I'll try and do the same again. The managerial appointments we have made in the last 30 years are Turner Mcneill Taylor MK1 Venglos Atkinson Little Gregory Taylor Mk2 Oleary Oneill Houllier Mcleish (I'm ignoring the interim and caretaker types like Aitken and Mcallister) Each of those have operated in different circumstances and under differing strategies / philosophies and each have had unique circumstances and the changing football picture with which to contend as well so let me deal with them individually to show how I think Lamber stacks up. Turner - Bought in in similar circumstances to Lambert to be honest. A team that had been relatively successful but the owner wanting to cut back on costs and run it on the cheap brings in an up and coming manager with the spec of doing just that. He reduced the wage bill and finally dismantled our champions and brought in largely up and coming players and then went on to sprinkle it with a bit odf experience. He still actually went on a spending spree for the time he was operating in and outspent rivals. Football at the time was not as cash rich or dominated by 3 or 4 clubs with the emphasis of trying to reach the top four so I would argue that he had easier circumstances within which to operate. He failed and for me was not a person with the strength of character Lamber has. Lamber is better than Turner IMO Mcneill - Came in for a season and was woeful. Lambert better than Mcneill Taylor MK1 - The first real challenger to being one of our best appointments. Graham came in after we had been relegated but we were still a massive club. Yes we were in a mess but far better than any team in the lower division IMO. I do think he oversold our position at the time a little and the reason for that was to play politics a bit with Ellis was was domineering and wanted to run things his way. Graham's protestations over our position were exaggerated a little as a poke at Ellis. He did bring us back, not as champions. And we did finish runners up as well as flirting with relegation, but again the time was different and circumstances were easier for us. He bought Cascarino when Sherringham would have won us the league!. Venglos - Foreign experiment number 1. No contest Lambert wins for me. Atkinson - Second real challenger. Was flamboyant and so was his team. Assembled a decent team on the back of the Platt money again at a time when it was not about money so much. An aging manager though and so was his team. It wasn't so much built for the future as for the immediate 3 years. Won a trophy though and that doesearn him loads of brownie points. He loses to Lambert in that Ron was more of a now manager and Lambert is more of a long term plan man, IMO. Close call here though Little - Brought in as the game was changing, won a trophy and we finished high in the league. Spent huge amounts for us and at the time we were competing. A definite build for the future man and for me the man who runs Lambert closest in the best managerial appointment stakes. Its really close this and just a personal opinion for me on Lambo, I could be persuaded though and Lambert could move down to second place. His wastes on Collymore and Curcic do not help him. Gregory - A bit wee a bit woo for me was JG. Always just needed a couple more players. Spent a fortune on the back of dwight yorke and although this will not be a popular opinion and those will disagree, he did not spend it wisely. he spent it on players for now, more so than Ron did. so 6M a piece for aging Merson and Dublin was basically sunk cost and never allowed us to recycle the cash. Balaban, Stone, Kachloul, Hadji. He was allowed to spend huge sums, the kind of money Lambert would love to have I think. Oleary - Not a nice man at all . Never liked him crap manager Lambert is the better man by a mile and has a strategy which does not involve slagging the club off from top to bottom, the letter to Ellis was more about Oleary than anything else, we would not have that with Lambert. Oneill - I loved the man and still do, brilliant manager but was operating in a different world to Lambert. Spent a huge amount of money, but had to to play catch up. One thing about Martin and I guess most successful people are the same, he believed his own hype. Call it arrogance call it what you will but I think you also have to be pragmatic enough to see your own faults and not believe you are always right. Houllier - Failure. Just could not comprehend this appointment. I think the word Dis was missing. Mcleish - If I could not comprehend the appointment of Houllier then I am trying to block this one from my memory. Not fit to lace the boots of Lambert IMO Now I know some will come on and say about Mcleish and the results under him and show stats about them and how he may outscore Lambert etc etc, but for me there's more to it than that. He was a dreadful manager. Other managers in this list will have better points total as well. You know an opinion on the merits of a manager or how you rate them is largely subjective, as is everything in football judgement really. And i recognise my opinion on Lambert is in a minority of probably 1 on here. But I still hold it. Little and Taylor MK1 come close but I still think given the circumstances of the time, where we were / are as a club at the time of appointment, what strategy the managers were asked to work towards bearing all that and more in mind I rate Paul above the others. Sure it may not work and sure he may leave the club in the near future I accept that. But I truly believe given the circumstances some of the others had he would have out performed them and given where we were as a club and what was happening to us at the time he was appointed I am not sure any of the others could have done better or that there were other managers we could have got that could have done better To be honest I've seen better arguments to justify Hilter being good for the Jews! Complete one eyed twaddle! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Southgate? no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 IF this run continues to 8 games I cannot see how he would not get fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I believe Lambert is better than McLeish, but if that's the bar we're setting we may as well forfeit the rest of the season and prepare for the championship. I'll begrudgingly accept 4 consecutive defeats against that sort of quality of opposition. What I wont accept is the total lack of any threat at all going forward. I'm at the point where i'd rather we just go longball, get Gabby to play like he did when he was in his early 20s and win us some corners, and just spend every training session working on set pieces. I have no idea where the goals are coming from. A fit Benteke can finish but we've got to sort out the two passes before the finish yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 How anyone can still defend Lambert I don't know, I thought we may have a hit a turning point earlier this season but we have reverted to type just as we did after a bright start last season. No goals in 5 matches and conceded 13 is dreadful and another club record that has been broke. Also I don't see how Richard can say Lambert has more of a long term plan, signing Senderos, Cole, Richardson doesn't really say long term plan at all does it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I respect your posts Dickie but can't agree in any way! I understand that Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Stevo985 Posted October 28, 2014 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted October 28, 2014 Lambert's better than McLeish, but I must admit I'm currently not thinking it's by much. Houllier was definitely better than both. Houllier was ultimately a failure, but at least you could see what he was trying to do. He was a victim of his health and just trying to do a bit too much too quickly, imo. But I think he had a plan, he just wasn't around long enough (and never would have been which is why it was a bad appointment) to make it work. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 you cant really think that Lambert is a better manager than Big Ron, Gregory and Little their is stubborn and delusional 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Isa Posted October 28, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Richard, Firstly, thanks for putting the effort into such a substantial response. I do object to the reasoning behind some of your conclusions though which does come across as far too simplistic at times. Mainly due to the overriding idea that managerial ability is tied to budget. It almost reads like Paul Lambert is the best manager on that list purely because he has had to work on the most restrictive budget. You also conclude that McLeish "isn't fit to lace Lambert's boots" on the perception of his appointment rather than comparing their records with us. Lambert has served up football as bad as anything his predecessor ever did and the results are hardly any better either. In fact, getting 38 points in your second season is a vastly worse achievement than getting that in your first season as the shoots of improvement and progression should become more apparent the longer you are in the job. So it's fair to say that your statement there was a tad embellished. Ultimately, as you say, this is a subjective matter but let me ask you this: What is Lambert actually good at? From my point of view, he is a poor coach which is why we haven't seen any improvement in how the team play. He is an even worse tactican and you can pretty much look at any game from the past year for proof of this. He is poor in the transfer market. His youth promotion record is non-existant. He is clearly not a particularly good man-manager or motivator going by demeanour of the players at times. Simply giving him more money will not change this. Edited October 28, 2014 by Isa 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Lambert will be gone at end of westham game fingers crossed cant believe im saying this a big defeat at home is needed then defeat at west spam and hes gone because after its saints burnley and palace and he will not get wins there. I dont think I ever want us to lose 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 J firmly believe had houllier stayed on we would be a world away from where we are under lambert and where we were under McLeish. Right appointment just at the wrong time. Lambert is becoming increasingly difficult to support, you cant blame him for the 2 massive errors that led to the goals, but you have to question he's decisions in waiting so long to makes changes when for the thick end of 70 minutes we controlled the ball but didn't create anything. It really wasn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Lambert is in no way a long term plan manager not unless the long term plan is to see us play in the lower divisions. He might be better than Turner, McNeil, Venglos, Taylor MK2, O'Leary and McLeish but that is like comparing the quality of one dog turd to another. Being better than someone who is absolutely s**t is no great achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) I echo the views about Houllier. Obviously it was a rocky ride but I think there were mitigating circumstances too. He had totally different ideas (i.e. more progressive) to O'Neill and the transition from one to the other would've taken time anyway but especially when he had no preseason. The injury crisis we suffered during the first-half of the season was the most brutal that I've ever seen at this club. At one point, literally about half the squad were out. However, the results did start to improve and unlike with Lambert, you could actually see game-by-game progression in the team's approach. Where we might have been now had his health problems not resurfaced is certainly one of the biggest 'what ifs' I constantly ponder about. Edited October 28, 2014 by Isa 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 28, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 28, 2014 However, the results did start to improve and unlike with Lambert, you could actually see game-by-game progression in the team's approach. Where we might have been now had his health problems not resurfaced is certainly one of the biggest 'what ifs' I constantly ponder about. That was my thinking when comparing him to mcLeish while he was still here. At least with Houllier you could see the plan. It wasn't working that well, and I do think he tried to change too much too soon. But it was a move towards the better football that everyone is craving. At least there was a plan. With McLeish, and I'm sorry to say with lambert, I struggle to see what the plan is. I think Lambert had a plan when he started. But that got lost somewhere. Now I don't know what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 think if Houllier was still at the club we probably would be in a healthier state long term instead of hoof ball we currently have. Should have been kept on as Director of Football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 think if Houllier was still at the club we probably would be in a healthier state long term instead of hoof ball we currently have. Should have been kept on as Director of Football Sorry, but there's a lot of misty-eyed nonsense spoken about Houllier's time here. He was way, way past his best, and when you look at his transfer record at Liverpool and the short time he was at Villa, it wasn't very good. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 28, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) think if Houllier was still at the club we probably would be in a healthier state long term instead of hoof ball we currently have. Should have been kept on as Director of Football Sorry, but there's a lot of misty-eyed nonsense spoken about Houllier's time here. He was way, way past his best, and when you look at his transfer record at Liverpool and the short time he was at Villa, it wasn't very good. I think that's as much as anyone has said here. It wasn't the right appointment at the time given his health and his age. Plus I think he tried to overhaul the squad/style when he really should have done a slower transition. All anyone is saying here is that it was least a concious effort towards a defined goal. It was, ultimately, a failure. But there at least seemed to be a plan, which is more than can be said for McLeish and Lambert. And I do think if Houllier was healthy enough to have a few years at the club that he'd have definitely improved us beyond how he left us. I'm inclined to agree that we would be better off than we are now. Edited October 28, 2014 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts