Manager Paul Lambert

[dn1982]

As a CEO Faulkner is doing a good job our improving revenue shows this. He also came in at a time when the wage bill was out of control and was set a target of getting us sustainable also on target but bringing it back to Lambert as that's the thread IMO our next 2 transfer windows will say a lot about him our CEO our Chairman and our Club as the excuse of the wage bill will have gone. We won't be starting from scratch with a new manager (hopefully) which some seem to think is always the answer if then we aren't moving in the right direction then will be time to question the people in charge. I have faith in lambert after the 2nd half of last season. I like his ideas for the club I just don't see it on the pitch at the moment. Ohh what a win against Man UTD would do to this season this team and this thread!!

[GENTLEMAN]

One man's "allows the manager to revamp the entire playing staff" is another man's "tell the manager to get shut of the high earners and replace them with lower league dross". 

It is probably somewhere in between and less extreme. But I do believe it is for the right reasons and for the betterment of the club.

[GENTLEMAN]

 But Lambert is serving up football every bit as bad as McLeish's, and the results last season arguably were even worse.  Yet one is being kept due to the board's "patience" and the other wasn't.

 

I think they want stability under Lambert rather than just being "patient" for the sake of it. There is no creditable reason to sack Lambert as results are better than last season (so far).

Edited December 12, 2013 by GENTLEMAN

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

Emmm, read my post again. I didn't say everyone. 

 

You know what I meant

 

I shoul dhave put "everyone who was slating him" then, if you want to be pedantic. It doesn't change my point.

 

No it really doesn't say that either it's really how you've interpreted it.

 

I knew you'd do this.

 

That is literally exactly what it says:

 

 

 

I remember several months ago BJ10 being slated in another thread because he felt that several of our academy players although winning a competition may still not come through to the first team

 

That is NOT why he was slated. He was slated for being deliberately negative immediately after an achievement by our youngsters and for saying the victory meant nothing.

 

Whether he's right or wrong is neither her nor there. I agreed with him to an extent. He wasn't slated for the reason you said he was.

If your post reflected what was actually said in that thread then your point would make no sense.

 

It's not the reason why he was slated that i'm questioning your rebuttal on it's the everyone comment but rather than this turning sour i'm just going to leave it as it's not worth it.  

[Stevo985]

Hahaha ok mate 

[Isa]

What I will say is this - how manager PL managers go to watch every youth game? He was there last night. He is there every home game. Never misses one. The reason - he is as committed as they get and he believes bringing those players through is the future of the club.

Any chance he will bring some of them through anytime soon?

It's not football manager, just because a youth team player looks good it's world away from the premier league. Saying they could do better than this first teamed or that first teamed is also bollocks. If they fail it could set them back years, they have even less experience which we have seen doesn't bode well.

We must be the only academy in the country who never produces players who are good enough to get anywhere near the tean when they are teenagers.People always cite Southampton as some exceptional case when it comes to their production line but I'm sure it has something to do with them actually giving players a chance from a young age. I've seen so many players here at Villa waste their talent and lots of times it is because they are left in the reserves until they are 20/21.The physicality argument is used a lot but it doesn't seem to be a problem when the likes of United and Liverpool throw in Januzaj and Sterling.Saying it is 'bollocks' to suggest that a player like Robinson couldn't do any better then Weimann this season just sums up the absurdity of your argument.

Southampton doing that this season or last in the premier league, youngsters straight out of the academy? Cause they are, they’ve had the ‘luxury’ of doing it the lower leagues; similar to Swansea, something that a lot of Villa fans seem to forget when they are blue balling over them both for being amazing.You have no idea that he could do a better job than Weimann, thats my point. He could be the next Messi but history suggests that more times than not it fails, Luke Moore was amazing for the reserves etc up to first team... nothing. Its absurd to think promote them they’ll do better than so and so full stop. When they don’t do better everyone will be kicking off at Lambert for damaging our ‘youf’.

Actually Ward-Prowse and Shaw were given their first runs in the first team after Southampton were promoted. Last week when they had a few injury problems, they threw in Chambers at RB against Man City. When we have an injury crisis, PL would rather play somebody out of position or switch to a failed diamond formation just so he can keep the same old players in the team. If say, Herd and Baker get injured tomorrow, I can guarentee that he would play Lowton at CB ahead of someone like Donacien.

Also your memory is a bit hazy regarding Luke Moore. He didn't offer 'nothing' he came in under DOL and did pretty well and looked good under MON until he got that injury. After that, MON never played him again.

You are correct that the academy players might not do better but if we have somebody playing as Weimann is, the basic priniciple is that it is better to try a player who might produce something rather then a player who definitely won't. Did Moyes know Januzaj would be any better then Young, Nani etc? No but he could see the other wingers clearly were not performing and therefore made the calculated decision that it was better to give him a chance then continue with under-performing players.

So in conclusion, no I won't blame PL if he actually gives them a chance and they fail. I will however blame him if their talent goes to waste because he didn't trust them enough to give them a chance ahead of players who themselves are not performing to an acceptable standard week-upon-week.

[Kwan]

Isa does have a point. Lambert would rather play someone who played last week or played well some previous week at a position than not play the right positions. It's like the whole Clark/Baker at LB debacle. It hurts us so much in terms of width in the attack and then tucking in too far on defense. Then we've played Sylla or KEA at RM or LM because they played the previous week and etc. etc.

 

At some point in time, Lambert needs to play players in the right positions instead of trying to shoehorn players that played well the previous week or even played at all the previous week. There's something to be said about giving players confidence and playing them when they play well, but there's also something to be said about playing the right players in the right positions for the formation.

[Big_John_10]

Show me another club that would allow a manager to revamp the entire playing and non-playing staff? That indicates to me the club supports the manager long term.

With the aim to survive on the cheap its not really a surprise that this took place.

[VillaCas]

Actually Ward-Prowse and Shaw were given their first runs in the first team after Southampton were promoted. Last week when they had a few injury problems, they threw in Chambers at RB against Man City. When we have an injury crisis, PL would rather play somebody out of position or switch to a failed diamond formation just so he can keep the same old players in the team. If say, Herd and Baker get injured tomorrow, I can guarentee that he would play Lowton at CB ahead of someone like Donacien.

Also your memory is a bit hazy regarding Luke Moore. He didn't offer 'nothing' he came in under DOL and did pretty well and looked good under MON until he got that injury. After that, MON never played him again.

You are correct that the academy players might not do better but if we have somebody playing as Weimann is, the basic priniciple is that it is better to try a player who might produce something rather then a player who definitely won't. Did Moyes know Januzaj would be any better then Young, Nani etc? No but he could see the other wingers clearly were not performing and therefore made the calculated decision that it was better to give him a chance then continue with under-performing players.

So in conclusion, no I won't blame PL if he actually gives them a chance and they fail. I will however blame him if their talent goes to waste because he didn't trust them enough to give them a chance ahead of players who themselves are not performing to an acceptable standard week-upon-week.

 

The examples you choose are the exeptional outliers like Januzaj, to whom MU paid £5m signing-on fee - he'd be in our first team too. Southampton have a first-class academy allied to the fact that they have a large catchment area unencumbered by other nearby premiership clubs. Luke Shaw and James Ward-Prowse are exceptional and would be played by the majority of premiership clubs, in fact at 18 Shaw is already valued at £10m+.

 

I watch the youth and academy teams regularly and I can assure you that although we have some very good youngsters we have none at the moment is in the Januzaj or Shaw class. We have quite a number of good prospects - Donacien, Carruthers, Burke, Grealish, Graham, Webb and others - and I'm confident that they will be blended into the first team squad as soon as they are ready.

 

I don't know where you got your basic priniciple "that it is better to try a player who might produce something rather then a player who definitely won't", but 100% of academy directors would disagree with you. Players are assessed on a very regular basis and often play games and train with the first team squad. When it is clear that they are ready, they get their chance. Throwing an untried 17 or 18 year old into the first team, doesn't help the team and can set a young players development back months/years

 

I know for a fact that Lambert is a massive supporters of youth and he is at nearly every academy and U-21 match. He would like nothing more than to have four or five young academy players playing week in week out but they are not yet ready. There is a world of difference between an 18yo impressing with the U-21s and playing in the PL.

[VillaCas]

Isa does have a point. Lambert would rather play someone who played last week or played well some previous week at a position than not play the right positions. It's like the whole Clark/Baker at LB debacle. It hurts us so much in terms of width in the attack and then tucking in too far on defense. Then we've played Sylla or KEA at RM or LM because they played the previous week and etc. etc.

 

At some point in time, Lambert needs to play players in the right positions instead of trying to shoehorn players that played well the previous week or even played at all the previous week. There's something to be said about giving players confidence and playing them when they play well, but there's also something to be said about playing the right players in the right positions for the formation.

 

Lambert must be very stupid indeed. he spends all week training and assessing the players, reviewing tapes, understanding the fitness stats, discussing with his team of trained professionals only to make a schoolboy error by not applying this simpe rule that you have all figured out.......come on Paul, its not difficult

[TRO]

This theory about being reluctant to damage a players confidence by leaving him out or bringing him off, I'm really not so sure about.

 

A manager has a responsibility to get results, how he gets them is a separate debate, but he has to exude his own confidence and that can emanate from good decision making or decisive action.

 

If a player is consistently not doing what is required, he has to be " hooked" or left out....The manager has to be seen to be not condoning it. If it effects the players confidence then tough, he knows the place to get his confidence back and force the manager to replay him.

 

If as a player you was not performing Ron Saunders would blank you....not saying that was right just saying the extent to how some managers value, letting players know when they ain't happy.

 

Many fans have cited the fact that the Manager has no one else to play....If you are serious enough or value the reaction enough, you will find a way around that...you have to, you have to let them know by action, when performances ain't going to be tolerated.

 

Tommy Docherty answering a journalist who asked him " but who will you play " when he threatened to leave out half his talented Chelsea team after a post match drinking session in Blackpool...He said "I'll play the kids if I have to"

 

I am not privvy to the mind of the manager, or indeed his actions at Bodymoor, but I do feel at times low level performances are tolerated, not sure if that helps the manager in terms of his stance.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

Isa does have a point. Lambert would rather play someone who played last week or played well some previous week at a position than not play the right positions. It's like the whole Clark/Baker at LB debacle. It hurts us so much in terms of width in the attack and then tucking in too far on defense. Then we've played Sylla or KEA at RM or LM because they played the previous week and etc. etc.

 

At some point in time, Lambert needs to play players in the right positions instead of trying to shoehorn players that played well the previous week or even played at all the previous week. There's something to be said about giving players confidence and playing them when they play well, but there's also something to be said about playing the right players in the right positions for the formation.

 

Lambert must be very stupid indeed. he spends all week training and assessing the players, reviewing tapes, understanding the fitness stats, discussing with his team of trained professionals only to make a schoolboy error by not applying this simpe rule that you have all figured out.......come on Paul, its not difficult

 

 

People seem to think throwing kids in is easy, theres a way of bringing kids through and this isn't the stage to put them in. Soton are playing very well, so it's easier to adapt them in. We are sort of plodding our way through games, and the style currently being played would be a nightmare for some of our kids with their experience. Being asked to defend with full concentration, some may step up to the plate, but if they made a mistake, our fans would write them off and it would be hard to get that chance again to rectify it.

[Kwan]

Isa does have a point. Lambert would rather play someone who played last week or played well some previous week at a position than not play the right positions. It's like the whole Clark/Baker at LB debacle. It hurts us so much in terms of width in the attack and then tucking in too far on defense. Then we've played Sylla or KEA at RM or LM because they played the previous week and etc. etc.

At some point in time, Lambert needs to play players in the right positions instead of trying to shoehorn players that played well the previous week or even played at all the previous week. There's something to be said about giving players confidence and playing them when they play well, but there's also something to be said about playing the right players in the right positions for the formation.

Lambert must be very stupid indeed. he spends all week training and assessing the players, reviewing tapes, understanding the fitness stats, discussing with his team of trained professionals only to make a schoolboy error by not applying this simpe rule that you have all figured out.......come on Paul, its not difficult

He's not stupid. I quite rate Paul and think he's doing great things here.

Doesn't change the fact that he's stubborn as a mule when it comes to players and formations

[TRO]

Villa Cas

 

Isa's examples are not exceptional....they are examples....he is illustrating his point clearly

 

Vic Crowe developed/left behind and then followed on by Ron Saunders Brian Little, Keith Leonard, Gary shaw, Sid Cowans, John Gidman, Gary Williams, John Deehan.

 

We have done it in the past.

 

I don't see our academy players achieving the levels of development and consistency that we have achieved in previous years.

 

I want to see Paul Lambert succeed...and in some area's he is, but in some others he is not.

 

It is paramount to stay positive and support the team and their staff, but it is equally, folly to refer to time and patience as if it is some kind of magic potion.

 

look no disrespect to any one concerned, but there are players from the academy that have been hyped up, when any discerning fan will tell that the chances of these making it are remote.

 

young players need to be pulling up trees in their respective teams to get Football managers interested enough to play them....its the managers bloody lively hood at stake.

 

Its the responsibility of the young player to play his way in .....not a relative favour from the manager.

 

I think some folk at times have a very bullish view of some of our very doubtful academy players.

 

Ps   It is a very big step up to the Prem....all the more reason that you have to excel in your own team, not just have a decent game.

Edited December 12, 2013 by TRO

[VillaCas]

Villa Cas

 

Isa's examples are not exceptional....they are examples....he is illustrating his point clearly

 

Vic Crowe developed/left behind and then followed on by Ron Saunders Brian Little, Keith Leonard, Gary shaw, Sid Cowans, John Gidman, Gary Williams, John Deehan.

 

We have done it in the past.

 

I don't see our academy players achieving the levels of development and consistency that we have achieved in previous years.

 

I want to see Paul Lambert succeed...and in some area's he is, but in some others he is not.

 

It is paramount to stay positive and support the team and their staff, but it is equally, folly to refer to time and patience as if it is some kind of magic potion.

 

look no disrespect to any one concerned, but there are players from the academy that have been hyped up, when any discerning fan will tell that the chances of these making it are remote.

 

young players need to be pulling up trees in their respective teams to get Football managers interested enough to play them....its the managers bloody lively hood at stake.

 

Its the responsibility of the young player to play his way in .....not a relative favour from the manager.

 

I think some folk at times have a very bullish view of some of our very doubtful academy players.

 

Exceptional examples - not many 18yo get a £5m signing-on fee for example

[StefanAVFC]

 

delete

Edited December 12, 2013 by StefanAVFC

[StefanAVFC]

 

That's a no then. I was just wondering because Faulkner seems to cop an awful lot of flak from people who don't know what his remit actually is and it's baffling. Lerner is clear and I can accept criticisms of him because at the end of the day, it's his club and all decisions could be made by him. However, none of us really know what Faulkner's job description is. If it was (hypothetically), get the wage bill down, then he's done a great job.

 

It's this notion of black and white rearing it's ugly head again. Things are either one thing, or they're not. When in fact, things rarely are that clear cut.

It would be a bizarre business organisation in which the Chief Executive Officer's job description consisted of one line - get the wage bill down.

 

 

Good job I said 'hypothetically' then.

Edited December 12, 2013 by StefanAVFC

[mikeyp102]

Villa Cas

Isa's examples are not exceptional....they are examples....he is illustrating his point clearly

Vic Crowe developed/left behind and then followed on by Ron Saunders Brian Little, Keith Leonard, Gary shaw, Sid Cowans, John Gidman, Gary Williams, John Deehan.

We have done it in the past.

I don't see our academy players achieving the levels of development and consistency that we have achieved in previous years.

I want to see Paul Lambert succeed...and in some area's he is, but in some others he is not.

It is paramount to stay positive and support the team and their staff, but it is equally, folly to refer to time and patience as if it is some kind of magic potion.

look no disrespect to any one concerned, but there are players from the academy that have been hyped up, when any discerning fan will tell that the chances of these making it are remote.

young players need to be pulling up trees in their respective teams to get Football managers interested enough to play them....its the managers bloody lively hood at stake.

Its the responsibility of the young player to play his way in .....not a relative favour from the manager.

I think some folk at times have a very bullish view of some of our very doubtful academy players.

Exceptional examples - not many 18yo get a £5m signing-on fee for example

Ok so what about the likes of sterling, suso, wisdom etc at Liverpool? They were all given run outs at a young age.

[GENTLEMAN]

 

Show me another club that would allow a manager to revamp the entire playing and non-playing staff? That indicates to me the club supports the manager long term.

With the aim to survive on the cheap its not really a surprise that this took place.

 

How would you have handled the situation?

Edited December 12, 2013 by GENTLEMAN

[vandaq]

Man this place is gonna be fun on sunday