The Culverhouse theory

[Ivo Stas]

I have a suspicion that Ian Culverhouse was the brains behind the Lambert operation and that we have noticeably declined since his dismissal. My theory is based thus:

1) I think that Ian Culverhouse (and Karsa) only teamed up with Lambert at Colchester (and followed him to Norwich). Prior to Colchester, Lambert (I believe) had a pretty poor record as a manager (certainly he resigned from both Livingstone and Wycombe).

2) If I remember correctly, Culverhouse was still assistant manager for our last good performance (the 1-0 home win over Chelsea) and since he left we have been woeful.

3) Whilst Culverhouse was here, we did have a clear tactical approach - direct counterattacking football that didn't always work very well but, when Benteke or Kozak were fit, sometimes did. Since he left I had no idea what our tactics were until Lambert suddenly switched to playing a possession-based passing-out-from-the-back game after, apparently, visiting Guardiola at Bayern and basically trying to copy what he saw there. Which in my opinion has made us worse results-wise (if a bit prettier on the eye).

4) I'm sure I read Lambert saying in the early days, when we were buying young players from the lower leagues, that Culverhouse was the driving force behind signing Westwood. Certainly, this summer, the approach changed completely to buying aging crocks instead.

It staggered me at the time that Lambert would let his two assistants (Culverhouse and Karsa) be forced out. Can you imagine Martin O'Neill letting the players choose his staff? Personally, I think, if their behaviour was so reprehensible, that he should have taken responsibility and resigned. After all, it wasn't one individual but both his assistants. (And now, after Roy Keane also went, I wonder if there is too much player-power going on.)

Anyhow, I think Culverhouse may have been the backseat driver and now Lambert is just going around in circles lost.

Who wants to shoot my theory down..?

[Rudy65]

Given we were crap when Culverhouse was here I fail to see any logic to your views

[Ger Regan]

I don't know, that theory relies on everything being fine before that Chelsea game, when it wasn't. We've also had some decent results since then. I really don't think there's any one reason why we are in the situation we find ourselves, either.

[N'ZMAV]

Or how about this for a theory - we was only any good under Lambert when Sylla was in the team, at the end of his first season.

[PaulWinch again]

Let's face it, we were dire when Culverhouse was here too.

[N'ZMAV]

Shit then, shit now, shit always. Lambert is consistent.

[dekko]

Or how about this for a theory - we was only any good under Lambert when Sylla was in the team, at the end of his first season.

Bring him back, make him player manager!

[Ivo Stas]

I'm sticking to my guns. I'm not a fan of Culverhouse and Karsa but when they were here at least I knew what we were trying to do (i.e. build a "young and hungry" team and play Martin-O'Neill-style counterattacking football). In our first season, we were both hot and cold. In the second, we struggled due to injuries to Benteke and Kozak. Yes, we were often dire but at least I could see a plan. Since Culverhouse and Karsa left, I have no idea what we are trying to do. My point being that Lambert was part of a team and when two-thirds of that team left, he should have gone too.

[mr woo]

I recall Norwich fans saying that Culverhouse was the brains of the operation right from the time it became clear Lambert was leaving them to come to us. The set up they had meant Culverhouse took training and worked on tactics while Lambert turned up on matchless and did a bit of tub thumping.

The point about us being crap while Culverhouse was here is a valid one, but if things are structured as above then surely the equation suggests that Lambert - minus a proven coaching team - equals....well.....pretty much fuck all.

[levico]

What is the f***ing point of this thread?

[Monty]

I think it's a good theory, and one which shows how bad things are. Culverhouse was indeed the brains of the operation - and he's an idiot.

[saunders_heroes]

We've got enough on our plate without making up nonsense like this.

[Ian.]

Jesus! If he was the brains before and going by your theory, we are well and truely doomed now.

[silhillvilla]

We were shit with culverhouse too.
Silly theory.

[Ivo Stas]

What is the f***ing point of this thread?

My point is this:

We hired Lambert-Culverhouse-Karsa on the basis that their success at Colchester and (especially) Norwich qualified them to take on the job of managing Aston Villa. They put in place a plan (signing young players and playing on the break), tried it for a couple of years, it didn't work so we sacked them. As per standard practice.

But, wait a moment, rewind there. We didn't sack them. We sacked two-thirds of them. And kept Lambert who, in my opinion, had the least input and has no managerial success on his own. So, in effect, we have gone into this season with a rookie manager who is making it up as he goes along. Hence first time he is exposed to someone else's different philosophy (Guardiola's during a visit to Bayern), he suddenly changes our whole style of play mid-season. And that is something unprecedented, in my opinion. For instance, I remember Houllier refusing to change the way (zonal or man-to-man) we defended corners mid-season, preferring to imbed new ideas during pre-season.

So the point is not to simply say "Lambert is crap" but to analyse why has he been such a disappointment. And this is my theory. Without Culverhouse and Karsa to set the tactics, he has simply poached the Bayern Munich philosophy without understanding about the "move" in pass-and-move.

In my opinion, the Aston Villa job should always go to a proven experienced manager, never a rookie.