Isa Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Implying I meant he was forced to change it all in one window and 20M to spend. Of the bolded only Delph and Bent(only because we are unable to shift him) are still in the squad, and Delph is still here because he earns the wages he's paid and then some after playing the best football of his career in the past couple of seasons so my point still stands. All the high earners (many of whom were first-teamers) have been shifted and replaced with cheaper options. But that wasn't even the point I was making in that post, the rest of which you seemed to ignore. It was ignored because it was not relevent, just as the who is in the current squad isn't relevent. This current debate stems from the claim that Lambert inherited a bad squad. The point being raised by myself and others is why McLeish was hounded out for surviving with practically the same standard of squad available to Lambert in his first season. And speaking of wage-bills, the wage-bill actually rose during Lambert's first season which sort of underlines that he wasn't forced to change it all in one go. The dilemma that you are facing is that you cannot reconcile the claim that McLeish did a bad job with the claim that Lambert inherited a bad squad. Edited October 30, 2014 by Isa 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heid3ster Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Is it a taboo to mention that McLeish came here with a strike against him because he relegated our fierce rivals, twice? I don't know why people always ask "So why did McLeish get so much criticism" as if it's some sort of "GOTCHA!!!" question. You know the answer to that question. Of course he got extra criticism. Of course he was given less patience. No one wanted him here to begin with due to his awful awful record (and awful awful football). When he arrived I think he was given a chance, and if he'd improved our play and moved us up the table I don't think anyone would have complained. Instead, her performed exactly as we thought - nearly relegated us playing shit, shit football. It's silly to compare McLeish to any other Villa manager, in my opinion, because while I believe we were justified in doing so, we pre-judged him before he arrived and as a result he was given less patience than probably any other manager would have been. I even agree with the theory that Lambert got an easy ride in his first season because he Wasn't McLeish. But I don't know why no one seems to want to come out and say flat out, "McLeish got criticism because he came from our rivals and played horrible defensive football and none of us wanted him here in the first place." It's the truth. And I don't think there's anything wrong with it, either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I think I've been pretty consistant with both McLeish and Lambert personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Two things spring to mind: 1. He bought better quality players into the club but he is not capable of getting the best out of them = he is a poor manager. or 2. He bought players into the club that are no better than what he already had = he is a poor manager. For what it's worth I am running with number 1. I'd be interested to know which of our exciting megabucks signings you think Lambert isn't getting the best out of, and why. And there's also a possibility number... 3. He bought players into the club that are no better than what he already had because he is operating on a budget = we still don't know if he is a poor manager. You mean 3) he spent a very limited budget on players no better than he already had instead of improvements - poor manager No, he spent a very limited budget on players on vastly inferior wages than those they replaced, which was a policy enforced by our owner. But he's brought in better players for that inferior wage... Vlaar > Dunne Senderos > Collins (*for us, and at the moment) Okore > Cuellar Cissokho > Warnock Benteke > Heskey Lowton > Lichaj (*Lowton probably earning more) Westwood > Makoun Kozak > Delfouneso Richardson > Bannan Bacuna > Holman Cole > Carruthers Then we've had: El Ahmedi in and out Bowery in and out Luna in and out on loan Tonev in and out on loan Helenius in and out on loan Bennett in and out on loan Steer in and out on loan And loans of: Bertrand Cleverley Holt The only one who's left that we haven't improved on is Albrighton. The squad is vastly improved, for much less money (good performance there from Lambert), but he's assembled a group of better players that he's got playing worse than the ones that were in before them. Yes, he's done a great job getting cost down, BUT that doesn't excuse the fact that he's built a squad that's better than the one he inherited, but he still cannot get the best out of them. Maybe he'd be better as a scout or in a developmental role, because although he seems to be alright at spotting players for good prices it's becoming increasingly apparent he doesn't have the foggiest notion how to use them once they're signed Edited October 30, 2014 by P3te 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Implying I meant he was forced to change it all in one window and 20M to spend. Of the bolded only Delph and Bent(only because we are unable to shift him) are still in the squad, and Delph is still here because he earns the wages he's paid and then some after playing the best football of his career in the past couple of seasons so my point still stands. All the high earners (many of whom were first-teamers) have been shifted and replaced with cheaper options. But that wasn't even the point I was making in that post, the rest of which you seemed to ignore. It was ignored because it was not relevent, just as the who is in the current squad isn't relevent. This current debate stems from the claim that Lambert inherited a bad squad. The point being raised by myself and others is why McLeish was hounded out for surviving with practically the same standard of squad available to Lambert in his first season. And speaking of wage-bills, the wage-bill actually rose during Lambert's first season which sort of underlines that he wasn't forced to change it all in one go. The dilemma that you are facing is that you cannot reconcile the claim that McLeish did a bad job with the claim that Lambert inherited a bad squad. The debate is not that Lambert inherited a bad squad, and I've never made such a claim. That is a misunderstanding stemming from the fact that Lambert had to overhaul the squad, in that the first thing that comes to mind is that he did that because he inherited a bad squad. No, he overhauled the squad because of sanctions from Lerner. The fact that he didn't do it all in one season is a red herring, as it was always clearly the goal as he mentioned numerous times. So the wage bill rose during his first season, that only indicates that we weren't able to shift players like Ireland in that time. As I've already mentioned, and you've conveniently ignored; I think Mcleish did a bad job because he almost relegated a team on a top 6 wage bill and a team who for the most part were involved in top 9 finishes in the seasons prior. Two things spring to mind: 1. He bought better quality players into the club but he is not capable of getting the best out of them = he is a poor manager. or 2. He bought players into the club that are no better than what he already had = he is a poor manager. For what it's worth I am running with number 1. I'd be interested to know which of our exciting megabucks signings you think Lambert isn't getting the best out of, and why. And there's also a possibility number... 3. He bought players into the club that are no better than what he already had because he is operating on a budget = we still don't know if he is a poor manager. You mean 3) he spent a very limited budget on players no better than he already had instead of improvements - poor manager No, he spent a very limited budget on players on vastly inferior wages than those they replaced, which was a policy enforced by our owner. But he's brought in better players for that inferior wage... Vlaar > Dunne Senderos > Collins (*for us, and at the moment) Okore > Cuellar Cissokho > Warnock Benteke > Heskey Lowton > Lichaj (*Lowton probably earning more) Westwood > Makoun Kozak > Delfouneso Richardson > Bannan Bacuna > Holman Cole > Carruthers Then we've had: El Ahmedi in and out Bowery in and out Luna in and out on loan Tonev in and out on loan Helenius in and out on loan Bennett in and out on loan Steer in and out on loan And loans of: Bertrand Cleverley Holt The only one who's left that we haven't improved on is Albrighton. The squad is vastly improved, for much less money (good performance there from Lambert), but he's assembled a group of better players that he's got playing worse than the ones that were in before them. Yes, he's done a great job getting cost down, BUT that doesn't excuse the fact that he's built a squad that's better than the one he inherited, but he still cannot get the best out of them. Maybe he'd be better as a scout or in a developmental role, because although he seems to be alright at spotting players for good prices it's becoming increasingly apparent he doesn't have the foggiest notion how to use them once they're signed I completely agree with you. I've posted the exact same thing a couple of days back. He's managed to improve the team on a shoe-string budget which is wonderful, but somehow we play worse than we did when we had a much worse squad under him. It's perplexing to say the least. Edited October 30, 2014 by Keyblade 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Oh and McLeish? The guy who Lerner let spend £10-12m on star player N'Zogbia? Yea, he wasn't even under the same financial constraints as Lambert, invalid points/reasons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) It's perplexing to say the least. Maybe he's cut out to be an unearther of talent, and perhaps that's the approach we should take if/when it comes to moving him on. Offer him the head scout role or something. Let him get himself out of the spotlight for a while and do something he's clearly good at. If he took it it looks a lot better on a CV than a firing, and it'd let him get out of the spotlight for a while and even step aside soon after if he really wanted to get back into management, touting the line that he "needs the hands on day to day stuff". Nobody loses there Edited October 30, 2014 by P3te 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I'm increasingly getting the feeling that, even if we had the most creative player in the world available to us, that we would be utterly unable to use him properly *edit* I'm also suspicious that Lambert hasn't REALLY been interested in signing that kind of player, or we'd have one Kiyotake, Hoolahan When did we sign them? you said interested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I said REALLY interested 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The debate is not that Lambert inherited a bad squad, and I've never made such a claim. That is a misunderstanding stemming from the fact that Lambert had to overhaul the squad, in that the first thing that comes to mind is that he did that because he inherited a bad squad. No, he overhauled the squad because of sanctions from Lerner. The fact that he didn't do it all in one season is a red herring, as it was always clearly the goal as he mentioned numerous times. So the wage bill rose during his first season, that only indicates that we weren't able to shift players like Ireland in that time. As I've already mentioned, and you've conveniently ignored; I think Mcleish did a bad job because he almost relegated a team on a top 6 wage bill and a team who for the most part were involved in top 9 finishes in the seasons prior. I'll try again. Lambert in his first season had practically the same squad albeit with an higher wage-bill (which appears to be your standard in judging a squad) yet didn't do much better finishing 15th and securing survival only in the penultimate game. So why is that considered an acceptable season for Lambert but not for McLeish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post P3te Posted October 30, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) We didn't. We could have offered an extra 4 million to be sure of landing Kiyotake (or an extra fiver to land the 43 year old Hoolahan), but we didn't. I'm sure the funds shortage at the club couldn't possibly be a factor in our failure to sign either of them. Anyhow, we got the 42 year old Joe Cole in on a free. He's a bit injury prone, and really we should have gone for a younger prospect costing about ten or 15 million. I'm sure the funds shortage at the club couldn't possibly be a factor in our failure to do so. Lambert spent more than enough money in the preceding windows to have bought either player. He's been at the club a while now, and still not signed that number 10, so it can't be that much of a priority. In that time he's spent, give or take, 17m on players that are now not at the club any more, yet still no number 10. He's signed multiple left backs, a selection of central midfielders who all do the same thing, and still no number 10 If Lambert really wanted one, we'd have one. There's, cumulatively, been enough money there, and he's opted to use it elsewhere Edited October 30, 2014 by P3te 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Two things spring to mind: 1. He bought better quality players into the club but he is not capable of getting the best out of them = he is a poor manager. or 2. He bought players into the club that are no better than what he already had = he is a poor manager. For what it's worth I am running with number 1. I'd be interested to know which of our exciting megabucks signings you think Lambert isn't getting the best out of, and why. And there's also a possibility number... 3. He bought players into the club that are no better than what he already had because he is operating on a budget = we still don't know if he is a poor manager. You mean 3) he spent a very limited budget on players no better than he already had instead of improvements - poor manager No, he spent a very limited budget on players on vastly inferior wages than those they replaced, which was a policy enforced by our owner. Seriously! Are the players he bought this summer on vastly inferior wages to the likes of Helenius, Bowery etc. etc.? Edited October 30, 2014 by pacbuddies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Curtis Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 When reasons for supporting Lambert get a bit few and far between, dig out the anti-McLeish stuff. There is no sense in trying to compare them. All we know is that we are deep in trouble. The question 'are there three worse teams than us' has overtaken last season's stock phrase of 'we are 10th/11th/12th etc'. The whole thing has come home to roost. Look on the bright side. We could lose to a big club in the FA Cup. That won't be Lambert's fault, but it will be January, that month of broken dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The debate is not that Lambert inherited a bad squad, and I've never made such a claim. That is a misunderstanding stemming from the fact that Lambert had to overhaul the squad, in that the first thing that comes to mind is that he did that because he inherited a bad squad. No, he overhauled the squad because of sanctions from Lerner. The fact that he didn't do it all in one season is a red herring, as it was always clearly the goal as he mentioned numerous times. So the wage bill rose during his first season, that only indicates that we weren't able to shift players like Ireland in that time. As I've already mentioned, and you've conveniently ignored; I think Mcleish did a bad job because he almost relegated a team on a top 6 wage bill and a team who for the most part were involved in top 9 finishes in the seasons prior. I'll try again. Lambert in his first season had practically the same squad albeit with an higher wage-bill (which appears to be your standard in judging a squad) yet didn't do much better finishing 15th and securing survival only in the penultimate game. So why is that considered an acceptable season for Lambert but not for McLeish? He froze out most of the players from the McLeish era that he hadn't already sold, and the only ones he used were mainly the academy graduates (who were on a much lower wage for some weird reason). I'll say this again, just because they were still in the squad (which means the wage bill would remain the same or increase as players are added to it) doesn't mean they were being utilized, whereas McLeish regularly used players like Petrov, Bent (off the back of scoring 18 PL goals the previous season), N'Zogbia (who he bought for 10M), a defence that was one of the best in the league just 2 seasons prior. This is without mentioning that he was given 20M to spend on 3 players in one window whereas Lambert spent roughly the same amount on 11 players etc etc. The 2 situations are not even remotely comparable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 If Lambert really wanted one, we'd have one. There's, cumulatively, been enough money there, and he's opted to use it elsewhere We've got one: Joe Cole. The money spent elsewhere has gone on Cissokho and Sanchez (who fills the position of DM, which most of VT wanted more than an AM). Someone is going to say something about the LB position now. Really unforgiveable that the manager had signed two LB's for the monumental combined sum of nearly four and a half million pounds, and NEITHER of them was any good. Let us now focus on this instance of complete incompetence and not worry about whether a clear majority of Lambert's other signings were any good for the price paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 He froze out most of the players from the McLeish era that he hadn't already sold, and the only ones he used were mainly the academy graduates (who were on a much lower wage for some weird reason). I'll say this again, just because they were still in the squad (which means the wage bill would remain the same or increase as players are added to it) doesn't mean they were being utilized, whereas McLeish regularly used players like Petrov, Bent (off the back of scoring 18 PL goals the previous season), N'Zogbia (who he bought for 10M), a defence that was one of the best in the league just 2 seasons prior. This is without mentioning that he was given 20M to spend on 3 players in one window whereas Lambert spent roughly the same amount on 11 players etc etc. The 2 situations are not even remotely comparable. And as I already alluded to, he wasn't forced to freeze them out which is why he started the season with them in the team. So my point stands, he had basically the same pool of players to choose from as McLeish, yet the perceptions of their two first seasons are totally contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 He froze out most of the players from the McLeish era that he hadn't already sold, and the only ones he used were mainly the academy graduates (who were on a much lower wage for some weird reason). I'll say this again, just because they were still in the squad (which means the wage bill would remain the same or increase as players are added to it) doesn't mean they were being utilized, whereas McLeish regularly used players like Petrov, Bent (off the back of scoring 18 PL goals the previous season), N'Zogbia (who he bought for 10M), a defence that was one of the best in the league just 2 seasons prior. This is without mentioning that he was given 20M to spend on 3 players in one window whereas Lambert spent roughly the same amount on 11 players etc etc. The 2 situations are not even remotely comparable. And as I already alluded to, he wasn't forced to freeze them out which is why he started the season with them in the team. So my point stands, he had basically the same pool of players to choose from as McLeish, yet the perceptions of their two first seasons are totally contradictory. So he just froze out useful players like Darren Bent and Alan Hutton because he felt like it? Personal beef maybe? Of course he was forced to freeze them out. What was the whole bomb squad about? Why did they all happen to be the highest earners? Why am I still walking you through the recent history of our club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 If Lambert really wanted one, we'd have one. There's, cumulatively, been enough money there, and he's opted to use it elsewhere We've got one: Joe Cole. The money spent elsewhere has gone on Cissokho and Sanchez (who fills the position of DM, which most of VT wanted more than an AM). Someone is going to say something about the LB position now. Really unforgiveable that the manager had signed two LB's for the monumental combined sum of nearly four and a half million pounds, and NEITHER of them was any good. Let us now focus on this instance of complete incompetence and not worry about whether a clear majority of Lambert's other signings were any good for the price paid. none of that changes what I'm saying, which is the manager thought that a number 10 was instrumental to his vision, we'd already have one at the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 He froze out most of the players from the McLeish era that he hadn't already sold, and the only ones he used were mainly the academy graduates (who were on a much lower wage for some weird reason). I'll say this again, just because they were still in the squad (which means the wage bill would remain the same or increase as players are added to it) doesn't mean they were being utilized, whereas McLeish regularly used players like Petrov, Bent (off the back of scoring 18 PL goals the previous season), N'Zogbia (who he bought for 10M), a defence that was one of the best in the league just 2 seasons prior. This is without mentioning that he was given 20M to spend on 3 players in one window whereas Lambert spent roughly the same amount on 11 players etc etc. The 2 situations are not even remotely comparable. And as I already alluded to, he wasn't forced to freeze them out which is why he started the season with them in the team. So my point stands, he had basically the same pool of players to choose from as McLeish, yet the perceptions of their two first seasons are totally contradictory. Young and hungry was Lamberts idea both Lambert and Faulkner confirmed this at the time! He failed miseribly and we got mostly young and shit! Benteke is his only real bargain buy the rest are average or shit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 we got mostly young and shit! the rest are average or shit! ill disagree with this tbh. they're being used very poorly, but we've made some very good signings. i think, barring a disaster, another manager would be able to get a LOT more out of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts