Paul Lambert

[TRO]

We are a long way from top 8 nowadays. If we sacked Lambert it's possible we could scrape into the top 10 again of course but that's hardly a mouthwatering prospect as even West Brom do that on occasions.

 

I can't say I agree with any of Richard's post a few pages back. What I do remember him saying a few weeks back is he thought our first 11/squad wasn't that much worse than Everton's. Now given one team is rapidly moving up the table and the other is plummeting surely Richard, unless you've changed your mind, Lambert is failing there.

 

I do actually agree with Mantis. Not often but certainly on the ownership point. Changing manager is just window dressing for me at this present time and anyway what faith do we have in Lerner to appoint a decent one given what he's come up with so far, it will be someone like Steve Clarke imo, that standard.

 

I'll say it again, for fresh direction, optimism, we need fresh investement and leadership from new owners.

 

There is no more or less guarantee that a new owner will make anymore difference than a new Manager.

 

so which is the more likely?

 

RL has far more financial clout than HDE ever had.....did much change there?

[VillaChris]

 

We are a long way from top 8 nowadays. If we sacked Lambert it's possible we could scrape into the top 10 again of course but that's hardly a mouthwatering prospect as even West Brom do that on occasions.

 

I can't say I agree with any of Richard's post a few pages back. What I do remember him saying a few weeks back is he thought our first 11/squad wasn't that much worse than Everton's. Now given one team is rapidly moving up the table and the other is plummeting surely Richard, unless you've changed your mind, Lambert is failing there.

 

I do actually agree with Mantis. Not often but certainly on the ownership point. Changing manager is just window dressing for me at this present time and anyway what faith do we have in Lerner to appoint a decent one given what he's come up with so far, it will be someone like Steve Clarke imo, that standard.

 

I'll say it again, for fresh direction, optimism, we need fresh investement and leadership from new owners.

 

There is no more or less guarantee that a new owner will make anymore difference than a new Manager.

 

so which is the more likely?

 

RL has far more financial clout than HDE ever had.....did much change there?

 

 

That is a very fair point...short of some sheikh in Abu Dhabi suddenly waking up one morning and wanting to own Aston Villa, ever challenging for CL in these times looks remote for me.

 

You can still at least be competitive for top 6 by having a plan concerning all areas for the club, Southampton do it and it's served them well despite selling half their team.

 

All I'd say is remember the optimism when Lerner came in. I suppose it will be different when new owners eventually pitch up, they'll be more cynicism and wait and see but if we start showing some ambition people will come round and we'll start to rise again.

[Shaw_nuff]

It's really come to the point now where I don't care that we can't compete financially or that we will never win anything of note again.

 

What we always forget is that football is an entertainment industry. All the masquerading that it's a 'results' business is just BS. Just ask yourself why thousands of people gathered together in the first place. That's right, to be entertained by a bunch of people who do things that you can't.

 

I used to love watching Yorke play. It was fantastic watching him ply his trade in such a languid style. He could have been on the beach in Trinidad. 

 

Same for Big Ron's teams. It was almost like a kick-about at times, win or lose.

 

For four-five years now (maybe longer depending on your viewpoint) we have been playing with fear. Our players are scared of playing at Villa Park whereas they used to be proud and willing to please the home fans.

 

We need a period of games where the fans can see progress. Some freedom of expression without the result being 'that' important. 

 

Villa Park is a ground where opposing teams now relish the opportunity to rub our noses in it. It has been and should be a place where they fear being played off the park. We need to put some fun back in our play!

 

 

This will never happen under Lambert I'm sorry to say.

[Mantis]

Now relish the opportunity to rub our noses in it? I honestly can't remember the last time we were a force at home, maybe in 02/03 under Taylor? Even during the free-spending O'Neill era we were mediocre at home. We definitely seem to have got worse at home under McLeish and Lambert though.

 

I do agree with everything you say though.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Mantis

[villianusa]

 

@Mantis, you wrote, "I wouldn't be against getting rid of Lambert if we got new owners in who were willing to spend more."

 

Does that mean the only way we are going to improve is by spending? 

 

Do you feel that Lambert is getting the best out of the players we have? Do you not feel no other manager could do better with the players we have?

No, I just think a new owner that would be willing to spend more than Lerner would be able to attract better managers than somebody who was willing to continue the current spending restrictions.

 

No I don't and no I don't think no other manager could do better - I don't know where this perception comes from that I don't think any manager could do better. I've not once said or implied this. What I have said is that I'm not sure we would be able to get any of those managers that could do better than Lambert with the current ownership uncertainty and spending restrictions.

 

I didn't say you did, I was just asking the questions for my own clarification.

 

The idea of getting a better manager would be difficult because of the present set-up, but I don't think it is impossible. I think a manager like Moyes would jump at the chance at managing us now and he has proved to be a way better manager than Lambert at this level. He had a rough time at United, but Van Gaal hasn't done much better even with the money he has had to spend.

[Oaks]

Now relish the opportunity to rub our noses in it? I honestly can't remember the last time we were a force at home, maybe in 02/03 under Taylor? Even during the free-spending O'Neill era we were mediocre at home. We definitely seem to have got worse at home under McLeish and Lambert though.

 

I do agree with everything you say though.

 

The quality and size of the pitch is needs to have good football played on it. That hasn't happened consistently since Little was in charge.

[Oaks]

There's been some mind blowing stupid decisions made my Randy in the past 5 years but giving Lambert and new 4 year contract is up there with hiring McLeish. There needs to be some change somewhere at some level. Lambert cant believe his look, just how bad does he have to do to get the sack...a new 4 year contract ffs.

 

Ive decided not to go until there's change. Im not wasting my money to get utterly depressed anymore, ive got to the point where i dont know whether i will watch the game on Sunday. I have to book days off to watch the Villa...i book my hoidays around home games, im up in Brum this weekend mainly around the Spurs game, i really can't be bothered anymore, because it looks to me everyone associated with the club cant be bothered either.

 

I think ive been pretty easy going with the club and the management, like otheres have said, im past hoping to win things anymore, i just want an entertaining  club. We're the most boring club in British football, i think relegation might have been more interesting. It might hurt for a bit, but its inevitable eventually.

[jacketspuds]

Pulis? Moyes? the Premier League doesn't necessarily have to be a men's club for the same rotating managers. let's do a Spurs and look for a manager abroad, hell, football is still football.

I think Southampton are the example we should try and follow. Spurs just snap up whichever manager has done well the previous season. Wouldn't be surprised if they signed Koeman next summer if Pochettino doesn't work out.

[George Curtis]

Lambert is head and shoulders the worst manager for many years. He fails to meet any criteria, football wise or personality wise. He will be coming in for some serious stick very soon. Then it will be the turn of Lerner.

Edited October 29, 2014 by George Curtis

[Villarocker]

I don't understand the debate about us needing new ownership to improve the club. Surely that goes without saying?

The only question that needs to be asked is:

Would this Villa team be better off being managed by someone else?

For two seasons we've looked horrendous and this recent form shows that this season is looking to be the same old struggle. I think it's time now to let someone else have a go at getting the best out of our squad of players.

[OutByEaster?]

There is no more or less guarantee that a new owner will make anymore difference than a new Manager.

 

I'd disagree almost entirely with this - the Premier league table is still largely a reflection of the wage bills of the teams it features - I'd put the influence of the owner on success compared to the influence of the manager at 90/10.

 

This isn't the 70's and 80's where a reasonably even playing field meant a good manager and organiser could make a huge difference to the performance of a team - it's a league designed to ensure that money wins. 

 

Managers define styles to an extent (there are teams were style is dictated by the DoF or owner, Spurs for example) and they can make  some difference, but the days of a manager making a difference of more than two or three places to a teams finishing position are gone.

 

Chelsea had no real managerial stability for four or five years; four or five of the most successful years in their history - I don't think the reasons for their success are hard to find.

 

I"m unsure on whether Lambert going would be a good thing or not, the team are demotivated and lacking confidence, a new face might change that and give the place a much needed lift, but unless the club changes, we'll be back here in a couple of years time no matter who takes the position - to some extent I'd be interested to see what would happen if we stuck by a manager through this difficult point, it'd be an interesting experiment and something no one else is doing - although perhaps there's a reason for that!

 

In the modern world of football, the owner is the football club, almost entirely - a new owner is a new football club - that's change - a new manager is a new voice in the press conference and someone else laying out the cones on a Monday morning; they've become more famous, and less important.

[drat01]

 

There is no more or less guarantee that a new owner will make anymore difference than a new Manager.

 

I'd disagree almost entirely with this - the Premier league table is still largely a reflection of the wage bills of the teams it features - I'd put the influence of the owner on success compared to the influence of the manager at 90/10.

 

This isn't the 70's and 80's where a reasonably even playing field meant a good manager and organiser could make a huge difference to the performance of a team - it's a league designed to ensure that money wins. 

 

Managers define styles to an extent (there are teams were style is dictated by the DoF or owner, Spurs for example) and they can make  some difference, but the days of a manager making a difference of more than two or three places to a teams finishing position are gone.

 

Chelsea had no real managerial stability for four or five years; four or five of the most successful years in their history - I don't think the reasons for their success are hard to find.

 

I"m unsure on whether Lambert going would be a good thing or not, the team are demotivated and lacking confidence, a new face might change that and give the place a much needed lift, but unless the club changes, we'll be back here in a couple of years time no matter who takes the position - to some extent I'd be interested to see what would happen if we stuck by a manager through this difficult point, it'd be an interesting experiment and something no one else is doing - although perhaps there's a reason for that!

 

In the modern world of football, the owner is the football club, almost entirely - a new owner is a new football club - that's change - a new manager is a new voice in the press conference and someone else laying out the cones on a Monday morning; they've become more famous, and less important.

 

 

With all due respect I think this is complete bunkum

 

So a good owner basically ensures success be it at whatever level? Rubbish. You quote Chelsea as part of your reasoning when the reality is that Man City Chelsea etc are the anomalies and not the reality to what typically happens. Unless you are saying that success can only happen with mega wealth throwing money at things

 

Your argument is really part of the problem, it certainly reads that get rid of Randy and things will improve, but get rid of Lambert and it may not, which is certainly a flawed argument at so many levels

[Kingman]

I would be surprised if he is still here January. Another no show against Spurs will see a messy crowd and not good vibes being live on Sky beemed around the world.

Souhampton game could be followed up with the most hostile home crowd in living history smashing mcduffs Bolton game to kingdom come.

I honestly think 90% of all our supporters have seen enough in the last 100 games or so over the last two and half years.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Kingman

[VillakevBromsgrove]

I am fed up to the back teeth with hearing how we have had a good start but played the top sides etc. Where did we have a good start, yes we got points on the board but at the same time we were not creating chances, an any other day we could have lost them games. I see nothing that shows me we can move on. We reward average players with new contracts, sorry but Gabby should have been shown the door, he aint good enough, only plays well for one or two games and does not bust a gut despite being a so called fan. We hire journey men on high wages who just want a pay check to see them till they retire. the club stinks from top to bottom, why run your self into the ground when you know you will be on the team sheet whatever you do. PL does not know how to change things, he tried the all out attacking plan and we got spanked, he is now trying to play defensive but has lost the attacking side. he is devoid of ideas, He has the players at his disposal to change things but does not use them either at all or to their strengths. I was in the give him time camp but now I have turned, enough is enough he has to go, just how many bad records is he trying to break, we are a joke, any person who knows football can see CB needs crosses to succeed, yet we have no width, Too many times we see the players have the ball in the middle and have to pass back due to lack of forward player movement, these are inexcusable facts and are 100% down to the manager. Can you imagine any other manager putting up with the disinterest the team show. He wont be sacked but then again he wont jump either as who the hell else would employ him with the CV he has made himself here at VP.

[Chap of Steel]

I doubt we'll go down, but the constant mediocrity of the team is frustrating.

I've always been fairly pro-Lambert but I fail to see how we can progress with him. Lerner won't sack him, though.

[DCJonah]

There is no more or less guarantee that a new owner will make anymore difference than a new Manager.

I'd disagree almost entirely with this - the Premier league table is still largely a reflection of the wage bills of the teams it features - I'd put the influence of the owner on success compared to the influence of the manager at 90/10.

This isn't the 70's and 80's where a reasonably even playing field meant a good manager and organiser could make a huge difference to the performance of a team - it's a league designed to ensure that money wins.

Managers define styles to an extent (there are teams were style is dictated by the DoF or owner, Spurs for example) and they can make some difference, but the days of a manager making a difference of more than two or three places to a teams finishing position are gone.

Chelsea had no real managerial stability for four or five years; four or five of the most successful years in their history - I don't think the reasons for their success are hard to find.

I"m unsure on whether Lambert going would be a good thing or not, the team are demotivated and lacking confidence, a new face might change that and give the place a much needed lift, but unless the club changes, we'll be back here in a couple of years time no matter who takes the position - to some extent I'd be interested to see what would happen if we stuck by a manager through this difficult point, it'd be an interesting experiment and something no one else is doing - although perhaps there's a reason for that!

In the modern world of football, the owner is the football club, almost entirely - a new owner is a new football club - that's change - a new manager is a new voice in the press conference and someone else laying out the cones on a Monday morning; they've become more famous, and less important.

I really disagree with this. There's no doubt an owner has an effect on a team but no where near the level you've suggested.

Look at Everton. Has their consistent top 6 finishes been because of the owner or the excellent work of Moyes and the way it continued under Martinez? Southampton and Swansea are two teams who perform well in the prem because of the managers they hired. An owner can set the ceiling of where a club can realistically finish but a good manager can have a big effect regardless of that.

[Stevo985]

I don't understand the debate about us needing new ownership to improve the club. Surely that goes without saying?

The only question that needs to be asked is:

Would this Villa team be better off being managed by someone else?

For two seasons we've looked horrendous and this recent form shows that this season is looking to be the same old struggle. I think it's time now to let someone else have a go at getting the best out of our squad of players.

But I think Mantis' point is, seeing as he seems to be the one fighting fire here, that he doesn't think anyone that we could currently attract would do a better job.

 

Now I'm not sure I agree with that (although there's obviously a big variable in who we could attract), but people seem to be twisting his words to interpret him as saying "Nobody could do a better job than Lambert" or, as you put it "This team wouldn't be better off managed by anybody else"

 

That's clearly not what he is saying. SO that restaurant analogy earlier didn't work either.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Stevo985

[drat01]

 

I don't understand the debate about us needing new ownership to improve the club. Surely that goes without saying?

The only question that needs to be asked is:

Would this Villa team be better off being managed by someone else?

For two seasons we've looked horrendous and this recent form shows that this season is looking to be the same old struggle. I think it's time now to let someone else have a go at getting the best out of our squad of players.

But I think Mantis' point is, seeing as he seems to be the one fighting fire here, that he doesn't think anyone that we could currently attract would do a better job.

 

Now I'm not sure I agree with that (although there's obviously a big variable in who we could attract), but people seem to be twisting his words to interpret him as saying "Nobody could do a better job than Lambert" or, as you put it "This team wouldn't be better off managed by anybody else"

 

That's clearly not what he is saying. SO that restaurant analogy earlier didn't work either.

 

Ben - that is clearly though not what is being written at least - and possibly causing the questioning of the posts.  To Say who we could or could not currently attract is a very subjective thing and you have to take a step backwards. I think except for a very small minority now there seems to be a general opinion that replacing Lambert is something the club needs to do. The evidence as to why this would be good for Villa is pretty clear so then you have to look at what a new manager could / would bring. The club from a playing side is in a mess, a got lambasted by mods and certain posters when I said this following the Chesterfield match at the start of the season but it's obvious to see that Lambert's influence on playing styles is in place at all levels and all levels are now struggling. When GT Mk1 came in he had similar problems and had to address them not only for the first x1 to get us back into the top tier but also at reserve and youth level, and he did that (something we should be eternally grateful for).  Clearly then we need a change of football philosophy at the club - which is dictated to by the manager - and this is where the subjective part comes in, I am pretty certain that even under Randy there are managers out there who could bring in the necessary skills and personnel to achieve this change.

 

As it stands things cannot continue as they are because we are now in real danger of sinking to such a level that it will take years to recover from

[Stevo985]

But none of that disagrees with what I've just written. I dont' see what's so hard to grasp about what Mantis said.

 

It is incredibly subjective, and you can disagree with it, fine. I disagree with it myself. But that doesn't change what Mantis said and that was that he didn't think we could attract better than Lambert.

 

NOT, that there is nobody better than lambert, which is how his posts seem to have been interpreted

Edited October 29, 2014 by Stevo985

[DCJonah]

Yeah I think that's fair about what mantis is saying. I strongly disagree though.