QuoteWhat 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.
What is the f***ing point of this thread?
Lambert has been a total and utter failure as our manager, and that's what matters. Time to sling it.
I seem to recall Lambert taking Wycombe to the LC SF while he was there.That doesn't sound like failure to me.
Quote from: dcdavecollett on January 10, 2015, 10:33:07 PMI seem to recall Lambert taking Wycombe to the LC SF while he was there.That doesn't sound like failure to me.On that basis we should appoint Phil Parkinson, Dave Smith, Lawrie Sanchez or Nigel Clough.