Manager Paul Lambert

[Morpheus]

I'm sorry, you are obviously the expert on football and players and I'm unsure why you're not manager of Villa, and Lambert is. Any idea?

Not sure that is fair comment. The poster is only stating his opinion and hasn't stated he's an expert on football or that he could manage our club.

 

Let it go, Stefan.

 

He's a rotten old chap that isn't going to find any hapiness or enjoyment out of the season no matter what happens.

He is however like you and i entitled to voice his opinion.

[Big_John_10]

Because there would be holes elsewhere in the squad? Kozak was a necessary purchase as we have no backup for Benteke. Tonev was a necessity, no two ways about it. We needed a wide player. That leaves us with Helenius, who cost around 1M. Guess you can say he was a bit of a luxury buy. Still not enough to get an AM I'd reckon.

Kozak wasn't a 'necessary purchase.' We had Bent and while Bent didn't fill the Benteke roll neither does Kozak so how was Kozak 'a necessary purchase?

I'm also not sure we needed a wide player either when our manager was playing Gabby and Weimann off Benteke. You could argue i suppose that if we'd kept Bent to utilise his attributes we would have needed a wide player but has Tonev shown anything better than players already at the club who could have fulfilled that role?

Helenius no doubt was a luxury we couldn't afford when the manager had already purchased Bowery but at least the manager has had enough confidence in Bowery to play him albeit not in his correct position.

For me it has been poor allocation of a limited budget when we could have improved the first team in positions conspicuous by their obvious weakness.

Keeping bent as a backup on his wages wasn't an option. I don't understand how this isn't yet understood

You read the opinions of some of the special cases on here and don't understand how they can't understand?

I only read this thread out of morbid curiosity now. Unfortunately the miscreants have won, they've forced out most of the reasonable people, there's only a couple left who will likely give up soon.

Didn't you spend most of last season mocking anyone who was worried about relegation and stating we'd finish above West Brom? Is that now classed as reasonable?

[Morpheus]

 

 

Because there would be holes elsewhere in the squad? Kozak was a necessary purchase as we have no backup for Benteke. Tonev was a necessity, no two ways about it. We needed a wide player. That leaves us with Helenius, who cost around 1M. Guess you can say he was a bit of a luxury buy. Still not enough to get an AM I'd reckon.

Kozak wasn't a 'necessary purchase.' We had Bent and while Bent didn't fill the Benteke roll neither does Kozak so how was Kozak 'a necessary purchase?

I'm also not sure we needed a wide player either when our manager was playing Gabby and Weimann off Benteke. You could argue i suppose that if we'd kept Bent to utilise his attributes we would have needed a wide player but has Tonev shown anything better than players already at the club who could have fulfilled that role?

Helenius no doubt was a luxury we couldn't afford when the manager had already purchased Bowery but at least the manager has had enough confidence in Bowery to play him albeit not in his correct position.

For me it has been poor allocation of a limited budget when we could have improved the first team in positions conspicuous by their obvious weakness.

Keeping bent as a backup on his wages wasn't an option. I don't understand how this isn't yet understood

 

If Bent's wages was ever going to be an issue why did Lambert give him the captaincy? 

[Mantis]

If Bent's wages was ever going to be an issue why did Lambert give him the captaincy? 

 

Because Bent was clearly in Lambert's plans at that point in time.

[Morpheus]

So we farmed Bent out on loan and spent 4.5m on kozak plus his wages. Not sure we're any better off but the Bent debate has now been done to death so i'm going to leave it. 

[Mantis]

So we farmed Bent out on loan and spent 4.5m on kozak plus his wages. Not sure we're any better off but the Bent debate has now been done to death so i'm going to leave it. 

Kozak fits our system better and he's obviously a lot younger than Bent. As a previous poster said, Bent's done nothing at Fulham so far to show that we're missing him.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Mantis

[Big_John_10]

So we farmed Bent out on loan and spent 4.5m on kozak plus his wages. Not sure we're any better off but the Bent debate has now been done to death so i'm going to leave it.

Kozak fits out system better and he's obviously a lot younger than Bent. As a previous poster said, Bent's done nothing at Fulham so far to show that we're missing him.

Probably wouldn't disagree with that.

I just don't agree that keeping bent wasn't an option.

[Morpheus]

As i've stated above while not writing Kozak off i don't think he fits our system at all and if we're all now alluding to giving players more time then since Bent wasn't match fit going to Fulham we should afford Bent the same consideration to get up to speed with his new team. 

[AvfcTheObsession]

 

On Kozak, I have been very disappointed so far. Doesn't have the strength, aerial ability or power I expected for someone bought to potentially replace Benteke long term.

However, lets not forget Lambert scouts players thoroughly before signing then by all accounts so he must have seen performances and attributes that convinced him that Kozak could be effective at this level or he wouldn't have risked 7m on him which is a hell of a lot of money for a club only spending 10-20m a year currently.

Yes but remember that this is the man who brought the likes of Bennett, Lowton, KEA, Westwood, Bowery etc to the club. Players who, in my opinion, aren't fit to wear the claret and blue.

Benteke aside, there's not many successes for Lambert when it comes to signings.

 

 

Lowton and Westwood both showed potential last season and looked very good buys considering the outlay. This season will be a big one for them in determining whether they can make it at this level, neither have started brilliantly, but it's a long season.

 

Whilst I wouldn't say the other 3 have improved the team, the wages and fees were pretty low for all, I'd say we'd have needed to combine the fees and wages from all 3 to get 1 potentially good first-team player in.

 

Lerner is holding us back at this moment in time, and at the end of the season once Ireland and others such as Bent, Given and maybe even Hutton are permanently off the books if we aren't being more competitive in the transfer market I think the tide will seriously start to turn for him.

[Rovers13]

So we farmed Bent out on loan and spent 4.5m on kozak plus his wages. Not sure we're any better off but the Bent debate has now been done to death so i'm going to leave it.

Kozak fits out system better and he's obviously a lot younger than Bent. As a previous poster said, Bent's done nothing at Fulham so far to show that we're missing him.

Probably wouldn't disagree with that.

I just don't agree that keeping bent wasn't an option.

Big john, you more than anyone should understand why it wasn't an option for lambert, key words "for lambert", to keep bent on his wages.

[avfc1982]

Seems some people have a massively inflated sense of entitlement.

Christ, I see Lambert and Lerner have sucked the last bit of pride and ambition out of you.

Whatever happened to our pro-active support? So sad.

 

Ah that old chestnut "If you disagree with me you have no pride and ambition".

 

Get over yourself. Just because I'm not the type of fan that thinks "we are Aston Villa. These players are not fit to wear the great shirt because they come from lower leagues bla bla bla" doesn't mean I lack pride and ambition. I just happen to judge players based on ability and performances rather than where they come from or how much they cost.

 

It's ironic really because some of our most important players right now were written off by fans at some stage: Guzan, Delph and Benteke. Even I'll admit to thinking Delph wasn't going to make it this time last year.

Are you feeling alright Mantis? 

???

So what's your ambition for Villa then, PL survival every season?

Exciting stuff. Makes you proud, eh?

[Villarocker]

It's arguable that, for all the signings he's made, half the side is made up of player's that were here before he came - Guzan, Gabby, Weimann, Delph & Baker/Clark. Guess that says a lot about the players we've signed.

[darrenm]

Because there would be holes elsewhere in the squad? Kozak was a necessary purchase as we have no backup for Benteke. Tonev was a necessity, no two ways about it. We needed a wide player. That leaves us with Helenius, who cost around 1M. Guess you can say he was a bit of a luxury buy. Still not enough to get an AM I'd reckon.

Kozak wasn't a 'necessary purchase.' We had Bent and while Bent didn't fill the Benteke roll neither does Kozak so how was Kozak 'a necessary purchase?

I'm also not sure we needed a wide player either when our manager was playing Gabby and Weimann off Benteke. You could argue i suppose that if we'd kept Bent to utilise his attributes we would have needed a wide player but has Tonev shown anything better than players already at the club who could have fulfilled that role?

Helenius no doubt was a luxury we couldn't afford when the manager had already purchased Bowery but at least the manager has had enough confidence in Bowery to play him albeit not in his correct position.

For me it has been poor allocation of a limited budget when we could have improved the first team in positions conspicuous by their obvious weakness.

Keeping bent as a backup on his wages wasn't an option. I don't understand how this isn't yet understood

You read the opinions of some of the special cases on here and don't understand how they can't understand?

I only read this thread out of morbid curiosity now. Unfortunately the miscreants have won, they've forced out most of the reasonable people, there's only a couple left who will likely give up soon.

Didn't you spend most of last season mocking anyone who was worried about relegation and stating we'd finish above West Brom? Is that now classed as reasonable?

Hrmph. Ignore doesn't work on mobile.

Nope, not me. You must have me confused with someone else.

[Keyblade]

 

Because there would be holes elsewhere in the squad? Kozak was a necessary purchase as we have no backup for Benteke. Tonev was a necessity, no two ways about it. We needed a wide player. That leaves us with Helenius, who cost around 1M. Guess you can say he was a bit of a luxury buy. Still not enough to get an AM I'd reckon.

Kozak wasn't a 'necessary purchase.' We had Bent and while Bent didn't fill the Benteke roll neither does Kozak so how was Kozak 'a necessary purchase?

 

I'm also not sure we needed a wide player either when our manager was playing Gabby and Weimann off Benteke. You could argue i suppose that if we'd kept Bent to utilise his attributes we would have needed a wide player but has Tonev shown anything better than players already at the club who could have fulfilled that role?

 

Helenius no doubt was a luxury we couldn't afford when the manager had already purchased Bowery but at least the manager has had enough confidence in Bowery to play him albeit not in his correct position.

 

For me it has been poor allocation of a limited budget when we could have improved the first team in positions conspicuous by their obvious weakness. 

 

 

Just because Kozak hasn't performed to your liking after 3/4 games (gasp!), doesn't mean he doesn't fit into our style of play as a back-up for Benteke. The 2 notions are mutually exclusive. Why are you bringing up Bent? He was shipped out precisely because he can't play as the lone striker in our system (or any other position for that matter). Also, we didn't need a wide player because we had Gabby and Weimann, a whopping 2 players? What happens if one of them got injured? And they don't play just off Benteke like you say, but as wide forwards. Sure they don't hug the touchline like old-fashioned wingers, but they are still very wide, and Tonev was an astute purchase as he now gives us more options in those areas. An attacking midfielder was one of our lowest priorities. Yes we most likely would have benefited from one, but let me put it like this. If instead of Tonev and Kozak we got an AM midfielder instead, I really doubt we'd be better off.

[Big_John_10]

Because there would be holes elsewhere in the squad? Kozak was a necessary purchase as we have no backup for Benteke. Tonev was a necessity, no two ways about it. We needed a wide player. That leaves us with Helenius, who cost around 1M. Guess you can say he was a bit of a luxury buy. Still not enough to get an AM I'd reckon.

Kozak wasn't a 'necessary purchase.' We had Bent and while Bent didn't fill the Benteke roll neither does Kozak so how was Kozak 'a necessary purchase?

I'm also not sure we needed a wide player either when our manager was playing Gabby and Weimann off Benteke. You could argue i suppose that if we'd kept Bent to utilise his attributes we would have needed a wide player but has Tonev shown anything better than players already at the club who could have fulfilled that role?

Helenius no doubt was a luxury we couldn't afford when the manager had already purchased Bowery but at least the manager has had enough confidence in Bowery to play him albeit not in his correct position.

For me it has been poor allocation of a limited budget when we could have improved the first team in positions conspicuous by their obvious weakness.

Keeping bent as a backup on his wages wasn't an option. I don't understand how this isn't yet understood

You read the opinions of some of the special cases on here and don't understand how they can't understand?

I only read this thread out of morbid curiosity now. Unfortunately the miscreants have won, they've forced out most of the reasonable people, there's only a couple left who will likely give up soon.

Didn't you spend most of last season mocking anyone who was worried about relegation and stating we'd finish above West Brom? Is that now classed as reasonable?

Hrmph. Ignore doesn't work on mobile.

Nope, not me. You must have me confused with someone else.

So you accepted we were in a relegation battle and didn't think we'd finish above West Brom?

[Wainy316]

How about an old school 4-4-2 taking into account Westwood and Weimann's form.

 

----------------------Guzan----------------------------

 

Bacuna------Vlaar-------Clark-------Luna

 

 

--------------Sylla---------Delph--------------

 

Albrighton------------------------------Tonev

 

----------------Gabby-------------------------

----------------------------Benteke--------------

 

Or if you don't feel comfortable with Albrighton, play Bacuna on the right and reinstall Lowton.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Wainy316

[Ginko]

It's arguable that, for all the signings he's made, half the side is made up of player's that were here before he came - Guzan, Gabby, Weimann, Delph & Baker/Clark. Guess that says a lot about the players we've signed.

 

Except before Lambert came along Guzan, Weimann and Baker didn't play and, under our previous two managers, Gabby and Delph were not playing well at all. You have to give credit where it's due, just because they were here prior to Lambert doesn't mean he hasn't done anything with them. You don't only judge a manager on the players he brings in.

That being said, I'm not exactly Lambert's biggest fan. I think he makes tactical mistakes in games and he's missed opportunities to address problems we've had for a long time concerning buying players in certain positions.

 

We've had a tough set of opening fixtures for the season though. I think we'll improve a little from here on in.

[Villastine]

 

It's arguable that, for all the signings he's made, half the side is made up of player's that were here before he came - Guzan, Gabby, Weimann, Delph & Baker/Clark. Guess that says a lot about the players we've signed.

 

Except before Lambert came along Guzan, Weimann and Baker didn't play and, under our previous two managers, Gabby and Delph were not playing well at all. You have to give credit where it's due, just because they were here prior to Lambert doesn't mean he hasn't done anything with them. You don't only judge a manager on the players he brings in.

That being said, I'm not exactly Lambert's biggest fan. I think he makes tactical mistakes in games and he's missed opportunities to address problems we've had for a long time concerning buying players in certain positions.

 

We've had a tough set of opening fixtures for the season though. I think we'll improve a little from here on in.

 

 

In case people forget Lambert actually signed Guzan.

 

 

 

The club had released him on a free.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Villastine

[Dodgyknees]

It's arguable that, for all the signings he's made, half the side is made up of player's that were here before he came - Guzan, Gabby, Weimann, Delph & Baker/Clark. Guess that says a lot about the players we've signed.

Getting more out of those already here. Can't argue with that.

[praisedmambo]

 

It's arguable that, for all the signings he's made, half the side is made up of player's that were here before he came - Guzan, Gabby, Weimann, Delph & Baker/Clark. Guess that says a lot about the players we've signed.

Getting more out of those already here. Can't argue with that.

 

So half the side are made up of players he bought? Guess that says a lot about the players we've signed.