omariqy Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Lambert takes no credit at all for Jack's emergence in the first team. IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Lambert takes no credit at all for Jack's emergence in the first team. IMO. Nobody is trying to give him any credit. Edited April 22, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myko Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Lambert takes no credit at all for Jack's emergence in the first team. IMO. Agreed. Lambert's poor management/handling of Grealish could and would have resulted in him leaving/not signing that contract had he not been Villa through and through, I feel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think he doesn't shoot because he knows he's expected to, but he sees maybe better options. Delph knew that even though Jack was in a good position to shoot, chances are he would receive the ball so he made his run. Defenders are all ready for him to take a shot, but he gives it to someone else in a more interesting position. I don't think he's afraid to shoot. He doesn't seem afraid of anything. He just sees other things. Sunday was the first time I was hoping Villa players would do certain things, like as if I was playing FIFA, but they did something far better. Delph Benteke and Grealish were two thoughts ahead of everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think Lambert played him because he had to play him, a bit like MON with Delfouneso. I never believed either actually had faith in the players ability but was an attempt to appease fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdomlahor Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I just think Sherwood is a lot less concerned about the impact of throwing young players in at the deep end. It doesn't mean Lambert was wrong, or that he didn't rate him. It's just differences in opinion on how to best develop his talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Lambert takes no credit at all for Jack's emergence in the first team. IMO. Agreed. Lambert's poor management/handling of Grealish could and would have resulted in him leaving/not signing that contract had he not been Villa through and through, I feel. How did you work that out? It was Lambert who promoted him to the first team squad last summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Sherwood undoubtedly deserves credit. My point was it sounded like the OP was suggesting Jack would never have broken through under Lambert. I don't think that's the case. Lambert was giving him game time (it was more than 10 minutes here and there. It was half an hour cameos and starting cup games) but he never looked much good when he came on. Sherwood deserves credit for getting the team playing in a way that suits Jack and also for raising the performance of the individual players, Jack included. But I don't think it's a case of Sherwood playing this kid who would never have gotten a chance under the previous manager. Not being flippant but I'm not sure under Lambert he would have been starting games until we were in the Championship. He was starting games under Lambert, albeit in the cup (I think). He never showed much. Now that could well be Lambert's fault, as the whole team looked shite under him, so it's no surprise that Jack didn't look much good. I just think it's wrong to say Jack would never have been picked under Lambert. He would have. Maybe not as quickly, but that's down to Jack's performance levels imo (which, before anyone mentions it, Sherwood deserves credit for too) I disagree with this in the main. I think he was showing enough considering the diabolical state of our "attack" to be given a run. He is light on his feet, tricky, you could see there was a touch of magic in his boots even if he was struggling to wave that wand. He had nothing else to learn except for transferring that to top flight performances. The manager at the time chose to bring Gil in. That was his decision. This manager has chosen to give Jack the chance instead and circumstance aside Gil hasn't produced anything like the performance Jack did on Sunday. IMO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Lambert takes no credit at all for Jack's emergence in the first team. IMO. Agreed. Lambert's poor management/handling of Grealish could and would have resulted in him leaving/not signing that contract had he not been Villa through and through, I feel. There's certainly potential for this and Grealish was evidently frustrated at some point (Twitter posts et al). However, one thing that Lambert (or the coaching staff, whoever) did do for him is keep him out of the limelight. He hasn't been under any real scrutiny apart from being a "potentially great player". He's been given the time to develop his game at youth level, then with Notts County and then whilst training with the first team. There's been no real "OMG ROSS BARKLEY!!!" style stuff from the media and I think this has benefitted Grealish during a time of development which, for me, is pretty crucial. In fact, the sacking of Lambert could be perfect timing in more ways than one - namely, Sherwood likes to use talented youth players and, at 19, Grealish is now approaching an age to flourish in the game. He'll be more mature than, say, even a year ago. Maybe old management would've given him a chance anyway - in any case, I'm quite happy with how everything has gone with him really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 22, 2015 Sherwood undoubtedly deserves credit. My point was it sounded like the OP was suggesting Jack would never have broken through under Lambert. I don't think that's the case. Lambert was giving him game time (it was more than 10 minutes here and there. It was half an hour cameos and starting cup games) but he never looked much good when he came on. Sherwood deserves credit for getting the team playing in a way that suits Jack and also for raising the performance of the individual players, Jack included. But I don't think it's a case of Sherwood playing this kid who would never have gotten a chance under the previous manager. Not being flippant but I'm not sure under Lambert he would have been starting games until we were in the Championship. He was starting games under Lambert, albeit in the cup (I think). He never showed much. Now that could well be Lambert's fault, as the whole team looked shite under him, so it's no surprise that Jack didn't look much good. I just think it's wrong to say Jack would never have been picked under Lambert. He would have. Maybe not as quickly, but that's down to Jack's performance levels imo (which, before anyone mentions it, Sherwood deserves credit for too) I disagree with this in the main. I think he was showing enough considering the diabolical state of our "attack" to be given a run. He is light on his feet, tricky, you could see there was a touch of magic in his boots even if he was struggling to wave that wand. He had nothing else to learn except for transferring that to top flight performances. The manager at the time chose to bring Gil in. That was his decision. This manager has chosen to give Jack the chance instead and circumstance aside Gil hasn't produced anything like the performance Jack did on Sunday. IMO of course. He was given a run. He made a few appearances from the bench and started a couple of cup games. In pretty much all of those games he wasn't very good. Go back in this thread and you'll see the majority of comments say that, and most people agreed that whilst we were excited about his future, he was showing he wasn't ready yet and he needed to be eased in. Plenty were suggesting he should be loaned to a championship side. Sherwood deserves credit for raising Jack's (and the team's) performance. But I don't accept it was simply a matter of Sherwood picked him and Lambert wouldn't. Its not like Sherwood put him in the team immediately and he hit the ground running. His performances that show he is ready at this level have literally come in the past 2 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradd92 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Years ago, I sat in a small, dark room in RTE alongside John Giles. We were watching Chelsea and he was growing increasingly angry with the flame-haired figure of Steve Sidwell. His mind was made up. He was desperate to do some analysis on the midfielder shirking responsibility. “You can easily hide on a football pitch and look like you’re doing a lot”, Giles told me. “Just watch Sidwell – he’s supposed to be in the middle of the park, dictating the play. Instead, he’s floating, telling others who to pass it to. He’s scared and out of his depth.” Sidwell lasted one season at Stamford Bridge and then joined Aston Villa. Ironically, watching Grealish at Wembley brought back memories of that conversation with Giles. http://www.the42.ie/jack-grealish-liverpool-fa-cup-performance-2061266-Apr2015/ Good article on him. Edited April 22, 2015 by Bradd92 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think he'd have continued to play the odd last 10 minutes of a few games had Lambert stayed. I don't think he'd become a regular starter, which he surely will be for the rest of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Stevo - the only reply I have to that is that the majority of opinions may not necessarily correspond with my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myko Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Lambert takes no credit at all for Jack's emergence in the first team. IMO. Agreed. Lambert's poor management/handling of Grealish could and would have resulted in him leaving/not signing that contract had he not been Villa through and through, I feel. How did you work that out? It was Lambert who promoted him to the first team squad last summer. Grealish had been given a taste of the first time squad under McLeish, making the bench in a prem game at age 16 prior to Lambert being appointed at the club, IIRC. From my perspective, it seemed as though Lambert was taking as long as he possibly could to promote Grealish to the first time and doing this to the bare minimum in order to please the fans without having to take any significant sort of risk with giving him an opportunity - instead choosing to give chances to consistently poor players such as Weimann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lloydxmas Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Probably not the right place to post this but MON and Sherwood have some similarities in approach (in my opinion). If we win the FA cup and qualify for Europe, this all out attack in games and 110% training will cripple us. See Hull, see swansea, see newcastle, see Everton. Hell, even see our injury list since Sherwood arrived. 2 fit center backs at the moment? Lowton is next in line if vlaar or okore get crocked, which is VERY likely. Our squad aint big enough....unless of course we get new investment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Injuries were horrendous long before Sherwood joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 A pre-season under Sherwood the team will be a lot better equipped to cope with the higher intensity football. The players that can't cope and keep getting injured will be moved on as Sherwood has hinted at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Maybe a better conversation for the Sherwood thread? It's an interesting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted April 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 22, 2015 Stevo - the only reply I have to that is that the majority of opinions may not necessarily correspond with my own. Well my response is if he was good enough to start when Lambert was here, should Sherwood be criticised for not starting Grealish in his first 8 games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Stevo - the only reply I have to that is that the majority of opinions may not necessarily correspond with my own. Well my response is if he was good enough to start when Lambert was here, should Sherwood be criticised for not starting Grealish in his first 8 games? Criticised? No, I don't think so. I wasn't necessarily criticising the previous manager either rather offering an alternative opinion to the one that states he hadn't shown enough. I'm a massive fan and I have been since the moment I saw him take his first touch for the big club in the 88th minute against Manchester City. It was sublime by the way. I think he is absolutely electric and I believe that in years to come we will remember him as a hero of the Holte End. He will be our George Best. So my view may not fit the norm, I accept that and I am comfortable with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts