The Paul Lambert thread - poll reset after our capitulation to Hull

[Dave Clark Five]

I think one of the things he needs to work on is his interview technique - not so much his accent, which he can't really do a lot about, but its more a thin skin when being quizzed by the media.  He doesn't seem to handle it well when someone says something mildly critical to him in a press conference, and immediately goes on the defensive - remember at Millwall last season he was incredibly rude to Mat Kendrick in the press room after the match.  Bearing in mind he's almost the only one at the club who talks to the press, he needs to portray Aston Villa in a good light, and he's failed at this at times.

He does a good impersonation of O'Neill.

OK see your point but honest I don't give a tinkers cuss how our manager 'sound bites'. He would be better in font of a mic if his team played decent bloody football.

I'm not on about his mumbling or his non-English accent and won't play that card. Various traits of MOLs are O'Neill-like. These are mainly the unpleasant ones.

[sid1964]

I dont understand why everyone keeps on about the way he speaks at a news conference? if we are so worried about that it is a good job that we dont have the Southampton Manager, he cant be bothered to speak english in his news conferences!

[Mister E]

The fact that we're trying to count up the number of attractive games - or part-games - says it all, really!

[rob_bridge]

I think one of the things he needs to work on is his interview technique - not so much his accent, which he can't really do a lot about, but its more a thin skin when being quizzed by the media.  He doesn't seem to handle it well when someone says something mildly critical to him in a press conference, and immediately goes on the defensive - remember at Millwall last season he was incredibly rude to Mat Kendrick in the press room after the match.  Bearing in mind he's almost the only one at the club who talks to the press, he needs to portray Aston Villa in a good light, and he's failed at this at times.

Personally I don't give 2 shits about his interview technique. If you want a media love-in then watch Moaninho and the mainly fawning media.

IIRC Ron Saunders was a dour interviewee whereas on the other hand Graham Turner was quite affable.

I know which one was the better manager

[Dante Lavelli]

A problem with it is that it provides ammunition that he is not an engaging person, implying that he'd struggle to communicate with and motivate the players.  Of course it could be a sort of 'poker face' and off screen he's a different character which is seemingly the case with Wenger and numerous other managers.

[aj2k77]

The fact that we're trying to count up the number of attractive games - or part-games - says it all, really!

Exactly. 15 minutes here, 45 minutes there. 90 minutes once every few months. It's easily the most dull Villa side I've seen (first game 1987) but i'm resigned to another season of this with the hope that Lambert is learning quickly on the job and there's more to come from him.

[Concrete John]

Until the league start giving points out for artisitic interpretation, I can live with how we play if we win.

[Chris Smith]

A problem with it is that it provides ammunition that he is not an engaging person, implying that he'd struggle to communicate with and motivate the players.  Of course it could be a sort of 'poker face' and off screen he's a different character which is seemingly the case with Wenger and numerous other managers.

The problem for any manager is that one word out of place is picked up by the media sites like this and spun into some great theory. Or if they say anything with even a hint of controversy they are hauled up before the FA. Better to say as little as possible and not give ammunition to the critics.

We saw it recently with Faulkner, for ages there were complaints that the board didn't communicate then when he tried half of this site used it as the opportunity they had been waiting for to slaughter him, with the predictable refrain of "don't tell me, show me" featuring heavily.

[MoetVillan]

One of the worst interviewing managers and infact didnt even speak to da beeb for years..... SAF.

[rob_bridge]

One of the worst interviewing managers and infact didnt even speak to da beeb for years..... SAF.

Correct

[Billy Walker]

A problem with it is that it provides ammunition that he is not an engaging person, implying that he'd struggle to communicate with and motivate the players.  Of course it could be a sort of 'poker face' and off screen he's a different character which is seemingly the case with Wenger and numerous other managers.

For me all this nonsense about the way he speaks is nothing but groundless prejudice.  He talks with a strong Scottish accent? Some people citing this as a reason why relegation could be around the corner or why we are destined to play dull football really need to think this through.  Kenny Dalglish was indecipherable at times and Jock Stein was certainly no Peter Ustinov...I have no idea how William McGregor or G.B. Ramsay spoke but thank heavens no one was around then to send them packing on the strength of their accents. 

Accent or no accent, Lambert was able to communicate well enough with his German teammates to win a Champions League medal.  This issue is nothing but a (ludicrous) stick with which to beat the manager.

[Damo70]

When it comes to managers and interviews if you don't win you can't win. Especially if the defeats are regular and it is hard not to become repetitive.
Lambert "We pick ourselves up and go again"
Moyes "We know what we are trying to do and we will keep working hard"
Hughton "If we keep playing like that we will be okay"
Lee Clark "I can't fault the effort"
If you win, pretty much whatever you say doesn't matter. People are too busy being happy with the win to pull apart your words.

[Monty]

Until the league start giving points out for artisitic interpretation, I can live with how we play if we win.

But we're not going to win the league, so what does this mean? Villa just bobbing along nothingly, perennial middlers who do nothing exciting? Sounds like purgatory to me, except you don't get to heaven at the end. You get ninth.

If we were winning the league or making big leaps up the table, then you could well play the 'results only' card. This was one which came up a lot under MON, and it was hard to argue with then. But there were a few points. Firstly, that when that tilt at the top ran out of steam, and we had to rebuild even to reach the middling we're at now, if we're not in much danger of relegation or winning the league, why play 'results' football when results don't matter? What will we have to remember from the odd scrambled 1-0 win to keep us roughly tenth? And where's the glory in playing pragmatic, win-at-all-costs stuff when you lose half your games? That's half the games wasted.

The second point was always the most important, though: that MON's archaically simple stuff was a big part of the reason we never quite broke beyond upper-midtable. This is the crux - there's no evidence that playing ugly stuff is actually more pragmatic at all. If it were, all the top teams would be playing it, and they're not. If it were, then those reams of forgettably bog-standard promoted sides who came and went while Martinez's Wigan cavaliered themselves to unlikely escapes for many more seasons than they should have - well, those forgettably bog-standard sides would have stayed up.

I think this is a hangover from the days when teams really could get kicked off the park in England, when Wimbledon did a Wigan for years with the opposite method. But these days it's the opposite: Warnocks and McCarthys come and go with their Wolves and QPRs, but Swansea and Southampton have established themselves with attractive stuff. The rules have changed, the physical stuff isn't as easy and attacking and passing aren't just nice ideas or nice to watch, they're actually the absolute basics. While it's three-points-for-a-win, playing to attack will be a better bet then cautious football (think about it - if you draw every game you get 38 points, if you win half and lose half you get 57). Of course you have to have some uglier, tougher aspects to your game, the determined headers, the last-ditch tackles, the opportunistic long-hit counterattack (see the winner against City), but that's no longer enough on its own. I'm not sure Lambert has fully realised this.

[BoskoDjembaSalifou]

Good post.

The frustrating thing is - and I think a lot of people will agree - that we've proved we can play nice football. Look at the goal against Stoke, that was a really good move. I don't understand why we can't do that over 90 minutes.

[Monty]

There seems a lack of structure in our play. They seem sent out with the right stuff in mind, and Lambert himself seems well-meaning and keen on the players expressing themselves, but it all seems a bit haphazard improvised, and rather relying on individual moments and bounces of luck. That's one reason we're much better on the counter-attack - there's more space in which to try your luck. That structuring comes from the often pretentiously-espoused but genuinely effective training methods of people like Martinez and Rodgers, and it seems near-impossible that Lambert holds training sessions that thought-through or rigorous.