Paul Lambert

[P3te]

 

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.

 

I would argue that McLeish had a plan. It wasn't a pretty one, and it wasn't a good one, but it was a plan. You could tell he was getting the players to kinda do what he wanted - it was just that what he wanted was not good

 

Lambert, on the other hand, doesn't even seem to have that. You might argue that, by sending similarly shaped teams out every game, there's a plan there, but the fact that the team can play completely differently based on how the wind blows (ball on the floor, passing it around for one half, massive hopeless hoofs for the next) suggests to me that he either doesn't have any philosophy, or he's unable to communicate it to the players. After 2 and a quarter seasons, if it's the first one it's time to go, and if it's the second, it's time to go.

[Zatman]

I dont event think McLeish would argue that he had a plan

[briny_ear]

Oh please. Houllier was the one who took over what was basically a top 6 squad and plunged us into a relegation struggle. It was fortunate for him that we picked up a few points before he came and after he was invalided out or we may well have been relegated. He dissed the club, fell out with senior players, made pointless signings like Pires and Makoun and in many matches sent out a squad who clearly had no idea how they were supposed to play. Things certainly would have been different if he'd stayed but not in the way some are suggesting. A poor managerial appointment - unfortunately for us, the start of a pattern.

[SikhInTrinity]

Houllier would have been kept on but when he gave the plans to Lerner to completely revamp Villa, he wanted to ditch big money players like Warnock, Collins, Dunne, Ireland at that time and knew that these players wouldn't really bring in much income, he then wanted to spend on the likes of Cabaye and Sissoko.

[P3te]

On the idea that there's nobody who could do better, that might be true, but it's also worth considering that some managers just click with some clubs. Right time, right man, right circumstances for success, that weren't suggested before, or weren't continued elsewhere. You can't, on paper, really say with 100% certainty that anyone will do a good job, or a bad job. Look how Norwich played under Lambert, look how Villa play under him. There's nothing there to suggest it's the same manager at all. Conversely both Little and Gregory did fine jobs for the bulk of their respective tenures at Villa, but nothing afterwards. The right man could end up being the last bloke you expect.

 

Sadly, the make or break decision there lies with the board. They need to talk to candidates, establish their ideas, figure out if they'll work both in terms of ethos and personality, and then make a call. To do that consistently, or arguably even ever, you need someone with footballing nous making, or playing a big part in, the decision.

I don't necessarily believe that you can look at any manage and say "yes, they'll be a success" or "no they won't" without being privy to the discussions that go on behind closed doors during the recruitment process

[useless]

Houllier had to contend with a major injuries I can remember quite a few matches where we were playing with Bannan and Hoggs as the central midfield. I don't think it was until December that things started to clear up. I would have rather just kept Mcallister than give the job to Mcleish.

[P3te]

Honestly, I think Hughes should've gotten it when MON left. I think things were set up for him to do an alright job (8-10th consistently). The cutbacks weren't taking over then, we spent a bundle on Bent and Makoun, and we had a few of his former players in the squad. We certainly wouldn't have been troubling the top 6 for a while, but I don't think we'd have seen the collapse we witnessed, and he definitely wouldn't be our manager right now. Maybe Martinez?

[P3te]

I dont event think McLeish would argue that he had a plan

Men back and hoof. It was consistent. Lambert plays that for 70 minutes a game, and the other 20 minutes we actually look like we know how to play the sport. Why not do the latter, or try to do it, for all 90 and see what happens.

 

I hope Lambert has a moment where he just thinks "f*ck it... if they want them to try to play attacking football, I'm done caring, we'll go all out for it, I'm done giving a shite", thinking that it'd prove whatever point he has. The thing is, I think in doing that he'd actually see improvement. Lambert breaking and stopping caring might actually turn it around - I mean properly breaking and properly stopping caring

[Stevo985]

 

I dont event think McLeish would argue that he had a plan

Men back and hoof. It was consistent. Lambert plays that for 70 minutes a game, and the other 20 minutes we actually look like we know how to play the sport. Why not do the latter, or try to do it, for all 90 and see what happens.

 

I hope Lambert has a moment where he just thinks "f*ck it... if they want them to try to play attacking football, I'm done caring, we'll go all out for it, I'm done giving a shite", thinking that it'd prove whatever point he has. The thing is, I think in doing that he'd actually see improvement. Lambert breaking and stopping caring might actually turn it around - I mean properly breaking and properly stopping caring

 

Like I said, I think Lambert had a plan.

 

but somewhere along the line it stopped working, or he abandoned it for whatever reason, and he's been flying by the seat of his pants ever since. With terrible results.

[P3te]

Any plan seems to break down when we get the ball in midfield. Nobody knows what to do. And the decade-plus long mystery of nobody in a Villa jersey understanding the basics of off the ball movement is still baffling. How can professional players join the club and suddenly get struck by lead feet syndrome. It's like clockwork. Someone joins, looks promising for a few games, and then forgets how to actually move into space. It's not Lambert, it wasn't McLeish, it wasn't Houllier, it wasn't O'Neill, it wasn't O'Leary. It was all of them. It's been the only consistent feature of Aston Villa since the latter stages of Gregory's tenure, fleeting moments of promise aside.

[Jimzk5]

Lamberts plan, when he signed up was to do what he did to Norwich to us, sign up a load of kids and £2million signings and build up a wave and ride the crest. It worked well at Norwich, its failed miserably here

When you look at he's cheap punts, its just more money pissed up the wall, Bennett, Luna, lowton, bacuna, tonev, helenius,And sylla wont be here much longer, have had minimal impact for us but still we spent £13/14million + wages on them. Lamberts plan A of buying young, hungry and cheap has backfired

[Risso]

Houllier would have been kept on but when he gave the plans to Lerner to completely revamp Villa, he wanted to ditch big money players like Warnock, Collins, Dunne, Ireland at that time and knew that these players wouldn't really bring in much income, he then wanted to spend on the likes of Cabaye and Sissoko.

 

This is a man who spent £18m+ on Darren Bent.  He might well have got Cabaye, but I'm sure there would have been lots of Makoun type flops as well.

[drat01]

Lamberts destructive influence is not just at first team level it's across the club. That is another reason why he is up there as one of the worst managers to have the honour of being villa manager

[P3te]

 

Houllier would have been kept on but when he gave the plans to Lerner to completely revamp Villa, he wanted to ditch big money players like Warnock, Collins, Dunne, Ireland at that time and knew that these players wouldn't really bring in much income, he then wanted to spend on the likes of Cabaye and Sissoko.

 

This is a man who spent £18m+ on Darren Bent.  He might well have got Cabaye, but I'm sure there would have been lots of Makoun type flops as well.

 

The problem was never the signing of Bent, he was worth the money, the problem was almost immediately removing the supply line to him

[Stevo985]

 

Houllier would have been kept on but when he gave the plans to Lerner to completely revamp Villa, he wanted to ditch big money players like Warnock, Collins, Dunne, Ireland at that time and knew that these players wouldn't really bring in much income, he then wanted to spend on the likes of Cabaye and Sissoko.

 

This is a man who spent £18m+ on Darren Bent.  He might well have got Cabaye, but I'm sure there would have been lots of Makoun type flops as well.

 

Again Makoun may not have been such a flop had Houllier been heatlhy enough to stay at the club.

 

I'm not giving Makoun any credit, because he was crap for us. But I think once Houllier left he just gave up and clearly had no interest in playing for us. Had the manager who signed him stayed, he might have had time to adjust and become a decent player.

 

That's a big "might" admittedly. I guess I'm saying he might not have been as big a flop as he was, had Houllier stayed.

 

 

And the biggest problem with Bent was buying a player that can only play one way, and then constructing a team that can't play that way. So whilst Bent isn't absolved of blame for one second, I do think he'd have kept scoring goals if the team recently had resembled the team he signed for.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Stevo985

[DCJonah]

I think makoun was destined to flop. He was never a premier league player.

[pacbuddies]

Lamberts destructive influence is not just at first team level it's across the club. That is another reason why he is up there as one of the worst managers to have the honour of being villa manager

Have to agree. His bad influence sees our U21's and Academy teams both languishing in the bottom 4 of their respective leagues.

[Isa]

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.

I liked the 'young and hungry' idea and do believe that it was a viable blueprint to long-term progression - if executed successfully. Unfortunately Lambert wasted most of his budget on duds who were not particularly young anyway and more importantly, not very good.

There are numerous reasons why he should've been out on his arse already but in my opinion none bigger than when he did a complete u-turn and abandoned his original policy. That was a tacit admission that he has no conviction in his long-term plans and is now just making it up as he goes along. And a directionless manager makes for a directionless club.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Isa

[Risso]

 

 

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.

 

snip

 

 

 

Christ, that's the biggest load of wind up nonsense I've read in a long time.  Ron Atkinson "loses to Lambert", and Little "could move Lambert down to second place".  Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans, that really is pure, unadulterated rubbish.  Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not that.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Risso

[villan501]

The thing that worries me after lambert has completely messed our club up he will leave get another job and we will be left to pick up the pieces why not cut our losses now and get rid whilst we still got time to fix things if we leave it too long the whole structure will need knocking down and start again.