HanoiVillan Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I'm expecting some pushback along the lines of 'signing younger players' doesn't equal 'making a decision to create the bomb squad', but I don't think that'll stand up. So are you saying those things do equal each other? Because they clearly don't. Also, saying the football decisions are his doesn't contradict anything he or Hutton have subsequently claimed. The bomb squad were clearly dropped for financial and not footballing reasons. I'm saying that the decision to play Lowton over Hutton straight away, without any rotation or bedding-in period, suggests that there was a clear plan to freeze out high-earners. It seems likely that that plan was agreed with Lambert. It's not like Lowton started out playing amazingly that season. And yes, as mentioned above, Bent and N'Zogbia played a few games here and there, but it wasn't that long before Bowery was making the bench ahead of Bent. Holman barely played either. I don't think the idea that there was a plan to freeze out high earners, that Lambert signed on to, is really that wild or hard to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I'm expecting some pushback along the lines of 'signing younger players' doesn't equal 'making a decision to create the bomb squad', but I don't think that'll stand up. So are you saying those things do equal each other? Because they clearly don't. Also, saying the football decisions are his doesn't contradict anything he or Hutton have subsequently claimed. The bomb squad were clearly dropped for financial and not footballing reasons. I'm saying that the decision to play Lowton over Hutton straight away, without any rotation or bedding-in period, suggests that there was a clear plan to freeze out high-earners. It seems likely that that plan was agreed with Lambert. It's not like Lowton started out playing amazingly that season. And yes, as mentioned above, Bent and N'Zogbia played a few games here and there, but it wasn't that long before Bowery was making the bench ahead of Bent. Holman barely played either. I don't think the idea that there was a plan to freeze out high earners, that Lambert signed on to, is really that wild or hard to believe. I may be alone in thinking this but I think Hutton was told to leave as a way to win over the fans. He was poor in that season but really had been made a scapegoat by the fans along with the rest of the back 4. I personally think Collins is head and shoulders above Clark and Baker and Warnock was better than Bennett. I didn't hear many fans complaining at the time when they were forced out. The majority seemed to think it was the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I seem to remember a case of Alan Hutton being a bad player....... being prevalent on here.....no mention at the time of being frozen out for economic reasons. Sounds like bit of backing tracking or opinion alteration to me. Nothing wrong with folk changing their minds, just wanted to mention it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 So now this: I'm expecting some pushback along the lines of 'signing younger players' doesn't equal 'making a decision to create the bomb squad', but I don't think that'll stand up. Has become this: I don't think the idea that there was a plan to freeze out high earners, that Lambert signed on to, is really that wild or hard to believe. And you're accusing other people of backing tracking (sic). If you look back you'll see that its been pretty much agreed that Lambert must have agreed to the bomb squad to some extent, it affected his job and the fact he didn't resign is an agreement on some level. The debate is whether it was his idea or not. Trying to pretend that agreeing to an idea and formulating the idea yourself are the same is nonsense. Hutton's comments and actions make it clear that it wasn't PL's idea, to me at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 I am not privy to the goings on at villa and I am not even going to attempt to speculate on a subject that is on par with the secrets of the Vatican and the divinci code. But at every turn, Paul lambert goes out of his way to fervently back randy Lerner. Interesting and spooky Would any other manager being denied funds be so supportive Not loaded comments, just not a clue what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanPetrovScreamer Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 As a rule of thumb, you can only slag off your boss directly and get away with it if you somehow make yourself indespensible. On the basis of Lambert's recent performance it could be argued (and by some will be argued) that he's lucky still to remain under employment of the football club. So that's why I think he has always backed Lerner so strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 So now this: I'm expecting some pushback along the lines of 'signing younger players' doesn't equal 'making a decision to create the bomb squad', but I don't think that'll stand up. Has become this: I don't think the idea that there was a plan to freeze out high earners, that Lambert signed on to, is really that wild or hard to believe. And you're accusing other people of backing tracking (sic). If you look back you'll see that its been pretty much agreed that Lambert must have agreed to the bomb squad to some extent, it affected his job and the fact he didn't resign is an agreement on some level. The debate is whether it was his idea or not. Trying to pretend that agreeing to an idea and formulating the idea yourself are the same is nonsense. Hutton's comments and actions make it clear that it wasn't PL's idea, to me at least. First of all, I haven't accused anybody of "backing tracking", and I'm not sure why you've said that. Secondly, it has not been "pretty much agreed" that Lambert agreed to the bomb squad, the quote I responded to initially was agreeing with Hutton saying "It was just a situation we were in and there was nothing we could do about it." Thirdly, I apologise if my original point wasn't clear enough, but when I said one particular objection "doesn't stand up", I was commenting on that objection*, not suggesting that the opposite is true. My position all along is that Lambert and Lerner agreed the strategy between them, and that pretending Lambert had nothing to do with it doesn't work when he says "the footballing decisions are all mine". What I'm objecting to is the decision to simply lay all of the blame at Lerner's door, and none of it at Lambert's, just because that's what's convenient now. *The reason why that objection can't be true is that we needed to play with a right-back. Somebody had to do the job. We had two candidates, one totally untried at the level, and one extensively (albeit often disappointingly) so. There was a decision taken to hire the younger player. Then there was a decision taken to start the younger player. Then there was a decision that the older player barely got on the bench, and never got on the pitch. Then there was a decision that the younger player never needing resting or rotating, even when he wasn't playing particularly well. Before making these decisions, people must have been happy with the idea of the older player not playing for the club again, ergo here is your "creation of the bomb squad". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Nobody said that Lambert didn't agree to the bomb squad, by staying in his job he agreed to it. However, Hutton's comments indicate that it was a position he was put into rather than one he created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Nobody said that Lambert didn't agree to the bomb squad, by staying in his job he agreed to it. However, Hutton's comments indicate that it was a position he was put into rather than one he created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Nobody said that Lambert didn't agree to the bomb squad, by staying in his job he agreed to it. However, Hutton's comments indicate that it was a position he was put into rather than one he created.Nobody said that Lambert didn't agree to the bomb squad, by staying in his job he agreed to it. However, Hutton's comments indicate that it was a position he was put into rather than one he created.Damn mobile! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnbull Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Good work, mate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heid3ster Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Nobody said that Lambert didn't agree to the bomb squad, by staying in his job he agreed to it. However, Hutton's comments indicate that it was a position he was put into rather than one he created. Nobody said that Lambert didn't agree to the bomb squad, by staying in his job he agreed to it. However, Hutton's comments indicate that it was a position he was put into rather than one he created. Damn mobile! I could have sworn somebody said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomaspg Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 As a rule of thumb, you can only slag off your boss directly and get away with it if you somehow make yourself indespensible. On the basis of Lambert's recent performance it could be argued (and by some will be argued) that he's lucky still to remain under employment of the football club. So that's why I think he has always backed Lerner so strongly. the graveyard is filled with people who thought they were indespensible. I cant think of any situation where anyone else or I could get away with slagging of the boss publicly. you might be able to survive on the good grace of your boss but do it repetedly and you will be gone as soon as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 i perosnally think it was a masterstroke from lambert swallowing his pride and realising he made a mistake freezing them out. he eaisly could have been stubborn and played the likes of lowton and bennett who have shown how poor they are 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Terrific first half from this lad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 The Scottish Cafu? Surely an own goal in the 2nd half to make up for it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Who's this Alan Hutton?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Isa Posted August 23, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 23, 2014 Very, very impressive again, a great all-action performance. Last ditch defending and marauding surges forward. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillanousOne Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 where are all the Hutton Haters now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 where are all the Hutton Haters now? In fairness, it's only 2 games. The thing I like the most about his performances, though, are how considered he's been. The major problem with Hutton previously was his rashness on the ball/in challenges. Seems to have cut that out and has been superb these first 2 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts