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

[pauliewalnuts]

Lowton and Westwood both had really good seasons last year and I had no worries about either for this season - however neither have hit the heights they achieved in their 1st season with us - Lowton is still worth persevering wih in my opinion and Westwood seems to be regaining some form - I would rather Lowton at right back and bacuna wide midfield .

I thought both were criminally overrated last season and I said so at the time. Westwood contributed little to the team and was laughably talked up for England a couple of time. Lowton cost us games because of being constantly out of position. Both played their part in one of the worst Villa teams in memory.
The sooner the pair of them are kicked out of the club the better, in my opinion.

Goodness gracious !
Both played a key role in our good spell last season and had stepped up two leagues - ridiculously harsh.

And they also played a key role in our appalling part of the season, which was most of it.
The longer we have players as average as Lowton and Westwood in the team the longer we'll be relegation fodder.

They don't need to be kicked out of the club at all. Despite disappointing for long spells.

They are the sort of player who should have been - and should still be being - eased in to a PL side. Like a few others, though, that didn't happen, and they got thrown in week after week, and in Westwood's case, still are.

I too don't get why Westwood starts week after week despite being so utterly anonymous, but the problem is not necessarily that he's never going to be good enough, it is that he's not good enough now - certainly not to start every game.

I think we need to realise when criticising some (not all, some) of these players that a major part of the problem is the way they've been taken and dropped into a team two flights ahead, week after week with no respite.

I don't want us to ship Westwood out. I want us to buy other, more experienced players for the midfield, to strengthen the side, but also so that he'll have an environment where his confidence doesn't get destroyed because he's struggling game after game.

We have a few players who are struggling, but the answer doesn't have to be to kick them all out - that's a sledgehammer / nut response. Lest we forget, how many of us saw Delph struggle to make any impact when he played for us? And look at him now.

It's a good job we didn't take that "chuck them out" approach to him a couple of years ago, isn't it?

[Legion]

I feel exactly the same about this. We should have bought other, more experienced players previously to supplement and enhance the experience for the ones learning their trade at this level.

[Steve R]

Stability isn't necessarily an argument in favour of offering a new contract to Lambert. Football is not a sport that lends itself to stability, in fact stability for its own sake is probably better avoided.

What actually counts is continuity. The apparently now-defunct Swansea City went from League One also rans to European football whilst going through 4 managers in the space of six or seven years. The key thing being that each of the managers had a similar approach to the game and was able to use and build upon what the previous guy had left in place. Lambert, in contrast, has had to throw away most of what he has inherited, and this season seems to have chosen to throw away a fair chunk of what he inherited from himself.

If we were to replace Lambert rather than extend his contract I suspect an incoming manager would be able to work with most of the players he would inherit, not a great deal would be lost. Those that would be cast aside would hardly wrench the clubs finances.

As a complete aside, if he were suitably selective Lambert would be able to come up with a fairly impressive CV without resorting to too much bullshit if he had the mind to.

[dekko]

As a complete aside, if he were suitably selective Lambert would be able to come up with a fairly impressive CV without resorting to too much bullshit if he had the mind to.

Quick summary:

His first job at Livingston was a bit of a disaster, and he quit after winning 5 games out of 32.
At Wycombe (League 2) he took them to the League Cup semi finals, beating 2 prem sides along the way, and lost in the second leg of the semi to Chelsea.  Also got them to the playoffs.
Did ok-ish at Colchester.  Battered Norwich 7-1, took over there, then battered his old team with his new one 5-0.
Breezed through L1 and the Championship without breaking a sweat at Norwich, kept them up without too much trouble as well.
Then us.

I think he could go on to be a good manager, but equally he might not.  Tactics seem to be the major problem (although I can see why he does what he does even if I disagree with it) but he's still young enough to learn.

What actually counts is continuity. The apparently now-defunct Swansea City went from League One also rans to European football whilst going through 4 managers in the space of six or seven years. The key thing being that each of the managers had a similar approach to the game and was able to use and build upon what the previous guy had left in place. Lambert, in contrast, has had to throw away most of what he has inherited, and this season seems to have chosen to throw away a fair chunk of what he inherited from himself

This is a good point.  Swansea based their 'project' on a style, we've based ours around a person (who may or may not ever be good enough).

[not3bad]

From what I understand from some of his quotes when he first arrived it was Lambert's intention to evolve a 'style' for Villa as well, but those intentions seem to have derailed this season.

[Monty]

I'm sure his intentions still remain, but he doesn't seem to know exactly how to fulfill them. He has high ideas, but doesn't appear to have much of an idea how to do the boring, daily, grinding groundwork in order to reach his goal. It's like trying to grow a tree by throwing some leaves in the air.

[Villa in Denmark]

Isa, we have two choices.
1) bitch like fuck because we've got Westwood and Lowton instead of Kolarov and Yaya Touré.
2) look at what we've got and what we can realistically expect.

You say expectations are instanty lowered in relation to these signings. We'll that's just being realistic.
You wouldn't turn up at a BTCC race in a factory fresh Focus ST and expect to win, but if you're entered into it and that's what your budget will stretch to, what's the alternative?

Is anyone happy that this is where we've being shopping lately? Not likely.

Would we like to see better players coming through the door and bust a gut for the club? Of course.

Are there any positives from what we're going through. A few.
We've proved that it is possible to find players, that could serve as squad players without giving the likes of Habib Beye £40K a week.
Hopefully the club's finances have now been repaired / stabilised to a point where we can start to build up a squad of higher quality players that actually want to be here.

The alternative is that we just expect Randy to keep throwing money at it until either he goes broke or we fluke a winning solution.

I posted a couple of weeks ago that Chelsea have spent over £1 billion since Abramovich took over (in a deal that wiped out a couple of hundred million in debt when Bates sold for £1) and Man City have spent over £500M since the Mansoors arrived.

When Randy's personal fortune is around £1.5 billion, we just can't compete at the top end by buying our way in, and our wage bill was way out of kilter for a club looking at 6-10th. If we were going to remain around there then it couldn't be continued with the existing budget.

The facts of the matter are, we (he) dropped a huge bollock entrusting almost total power to O'Neill, wasted a budget that should have seen us do a lot better than 6th.

We've spent the last 2 years gropping around for a way back to solvency when the gamble for CL money didn't come off, which was followed by 2 abortive attempts to stabilise the club without the drastic cutbacks we've seen. (For what it's worth I think we would have avoided a load of bother if Houllier could have continued)

Oh and re Westwood, my point was entirely about his role when we have possession, the element that seems to get the most criticism.

Just seen Steve Rose's post about the difference between stability and continuity and couldn't agree more.

For me the biggest failure over the Randy years has been the lack of footballing oversight, the very point Steve makes.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Quick summary:

His first job at Livingston was a bit of a disaster, and he quit after winning 5 games out of 32.
At Wycombe (League 2) he took them to the League Cup semi finals, beating 2 prem sides along the way, and lost in the second leg of the semi to Chelsea.  Also got them to the playoffs.
Did ok-ish at Colchester.  Battered Norwich 7-1, took over there, then battered his old team with his new one 5-0.
Breezed through L1 and the Championship without breaking a sweat at Norwich, kept them up without too much trouble as well.
Then us.

I think he could go on to be a good manager, but equally he might not.  Tactics seem to be the major problem (although I can see why he does what he does even if I disagree with it) but he's still young enough to learn.

Good post but as you say, he's learning on the job and right now there's very little indication he's heading in the right direction. I actually like the chap, at least his passion but for me, its just not enough. Certainly not enough if we want to get up to speed with the 21st century. More than Lambert's shortcomings is the fact Randy Lerner wants to extend his contract now.

For me, that scares the shit out of me. It's so stupid I really don't know where to start.

Steve R - great post, sums up exactly how I feel.

[robbo1874]

Stability isn't necessarily an argument in favour of offering a new contract to Lambert. Football is not a sport that lends itself to stability, in fact stability for its own sake is probably better avoided.

What actually counts is continuity. The apparently now-defunct Swansea City went from League One also rans to European football whilst going through 4 managers in the space of six or seven years. The key thing being that each of the managers had a similar approach to the game and was able to use and build upon what the previous guy had left in place. Lambert, in contrast, has had to throw away most of what he has inherited, and this season seems to have chosen to throw away a fair chunk of what he inherited from himself.

If we were to replace Lambert rather than extend his contract I suspect an incoming manager would be able to work with most of the players he would inherit, not a great deal would be lost. Those that would be cast aside would hardly wrench the clubs finances.

As a complete aside, if he were suitably selective Lambert would be able to come up with a fairly impressive CV without resorting to too much bullshit if he had the mind to.

this. Whilst I like lambert and I can see what he's trying to do and appreciate the constraints he is working under, a new contract for 3 years at this stage seems illadvised at this point in time. No need to be even talking about it if he still has a year left on his current one, which would overlap a close season.

Make him sweat on it. If he improves on last season then talk at the end of it. If not, then look at it again, is he still worth employing ?

[Chris Smith]

Stability isn't necessarily an argument in favour of offering a new contract to Lambert. Football is not a sport that lends itself to stability, in fact stability for its own sake is probably better avoided.

What actually counts is continuity. The apparently now-defunct Swansea City went from League One also rans to European football whilst going through 4 managers in the space of six or seven years. The key thing being that each of the managers had a similar approach to the game and was able to use and build upon what the previous guy had left in place. Lambert, in contrast, has had to throw away most of what he has inherited, and this season seems to have chosen to throw away a fair chunk of what he inherited from himself.

If we were to replace Lambert rather than extend his contract I suspect an incoming manager would be able to work with most of the players he would inherit, not a great deal would be lost. Those that would be cast aside would hardly wrench the clubs finances.

As a complete aside, if he were suitably selective Lambert would be able to come up with a fairly impressive CV without resorting to too much bullshit if he had the mind to.

this. Whilst I like lambert and I can see what he's trying to do and appreciate the constraints he is working under, a new contract for 3 years at this stage seems illadvised at this point in time. No need to be even talking about it if he still has a year left on his current one, which would overlap a close season.

Make him sweat on it. If he improves on last season then talk at the end of it. If not, then look at it again, is he still worth employing ?

Whilst i can see where you are coming from on balance I disagree. That approach gives rise to uncertainty and short term thinking, quick fix signings instead of building for the future. If the board think they have the right man they should create an environment where he can flourish, free of distraction; if not then they should look elsewhere.

If, in the summer we are in competition for a new player does he go to the club where the manager can convince him of his long term vision or the one with an uncertain future? Instability is not conducive to success.

[dicedlam]

Stability isn't necessarily an argument in favour of offering a new contract to Lambert. Football is not a sport that lends itself to stability, in fact stability for its own sake is probably better avoided.

What actually counts is continuity. The apparently now-defunct Swansea City went from League One also rans to European football whilst going through 4 managers in the space of six or seven years. The key thing being that each of the managers had a similar approach to the game and was able to use and build upon what the previous guy had left in place. Lambert, in contrast, has had to throw away most of what he has inherited, and this season seems to have chosen to throw away a fair chunk of what he inherited from himself.

If we were to replace Lambert rather than extend his contract I suspect an incoming manager would be able to work with most of the players he would inherit, not a great deal would be lost. Those that would be cast aside would hardly wrench the clubs finances.

As a complete aside, if he were suitably selective Lambert would be able to come up with a fairly impressive CV without resorting to too much bullshit if he had the mind to.

this. Whilst I like lambert and I can see what he's trying to do and appreciate the constraints he is working under, a new contract for 3 years at this stage seems illadvised at this point in time. No need to be even talking about it if he still has a year left on his current one, which would overlap a close season.

Make him sweat on it. If he improves on last season then talk at the end of it. If not, then look at it again, is he still worth employing ?

Whilst i can see where you are coming from on balance I disagree. That approach gives rise to uncertainty and short term thinking, quick fix signings instead of building for the future. If the board think they have the right man they should create an environment where he can flourish, free of distraction; if not then they should look elsewhere.

If, in the summer we are in competition for a new player does he go to the club where the manager can convince him of his long term vision or the one with an uncertain future? Instability is not conducive to success.

On your last point Chris, I'm not to sure players give a rats arse anymore. The modern footballer (along with his agent) are only interested in size and length of contracts. The best deal.
A lot of players don't give a flying who the manager is. If they are not getting games, they either just sit  back and collect, or get there agent to find them a new gig.

[adrenachrome]

Stability isn't necessarily an argument in favour of offering a new contract to Lambert. Football is not a sport that lends itself to stability, in fact stability for its own sake is probably better avoided.

What actually counts is continuity. The apparently now-defunct Swansea City went from League One also rans to European football whilst going through 4 managers in the space of six or seven years. The key thing being that each of the managers had a similar approach to the game and was able to use and build upon what the previous guy had left in place. Lambert, in contrast, has had to throw away most of what he has inherited, and this season seems to have chosen to throw away a fair chunk of what he inherited from himself.

If we were to replace Lambert rather than extend his contract I suspect an incoming manager would be able to work with most of the players he would inherit, not a great deal would be lost. Those that would be cast aside would hardly wrench the clubs finances.

As a complete aside, if he were suitably selective Lambert would be able to come up with a fairly impressive CV without resorting to too much bullshit if he had the mind to.

this. Whilst I like lambert and I can see what he's trying to do and appreciate the constraints he is working under, a new contract for 3 years at this stage seems illadvised at this point in time. No need to be even talking about it if he still has a year left on his current one, which would overlap a close season.

Make him sweat on it. If he improves on last season then talk at the end of it. If not, then look at it again, is he still worth employing ?

Whilst i can see where you are coming from on balance I disagree. That approach gives rise to uncertainty and short term thinking, quick fix signings instead of building for the future. If the board think they have the right man they should create an environment where he can flourish, free of distraction; if not then they should look elsewhere.

If, in the summer we are in competition for a new player does he go to the club where the manager can convince him of his long term vision or the one with an uncertain future? Instability is not conducive to success.

On your last point Chris, I'm not to sure players give a rats arse anymore. The modern footballer (along with his agent) are only interested in size and length of contracts. The best deal.
A lot of players don't give a flying who the manager is. If they are not getting games, they either just sit  back and collect, or get there agent to find them a new gig.

Yep.

Ashley Young's decision to join us under MoN was a notable exception which probably proves the rule. If I remember correctly, his agent was his Dad.

[JUAN PABLO]

i see fulham sacked their manager

got that felix magath  in


anyone else sacked ,been in hiding for a few days

[Chris Smith]

Stability isn't necessarily an argument in favour of offering a new contract to Lambert. Football is not a sport that lends itself to stability, in fact stability for its own sake is probably better avoided.

What actually counts is continuity. The apparently now-defunct Swansea City went from League One also rans to European football whilst going through 4 managers in the space of six or seven years. The key thing being that each of the managers had a similar approach to the game and was able to use and build upon what the previous guy had left in place. Lambert, in contrast, has had to throw away most of what he has inherited, and this season seems to have chosen to throw away a fair chunk of what he inherited from himself.

If we were to replace Lambert rather than extend his contract I suspect an incoming manager would be able to work with most of the players he would inherit, not a great deal would be lost. Those that would be cast aside would hardly wrench the clubs finances.

As a complete aside, if he were suitably selective Lambert would be able to come up with a fairly impressive CV without resorting to too much bullshit if he had the mind to.

this. Whilst I like lambert and I can see what he's trying to do and appreciate the constraints he is working under, a new contract for 3 years at this stage seems illadvised at this point in time. No need to be even talking about it if he still has a year left on his current one, which would overlap a close season.

Make him sweat on it. If he improves on last season then talk at the end of it. If not, then look at it again, is he still worth employing ?

Whilst i can see where you are coming from on balance I disagree. That approach gives rise to uncertainty and short term thinking, quick fix signings instead of building for the future. If the board think they have the right man they should create an environment where he can flourish, free of distraction; if not then they should look elsewhere.

If, in the summer we are in competition for a new player does he go to the club where the manager can convince him of his long term vision or the one with an uncertain future? Instability is not conducive to success.

On your last point Chris, I'm not to sure players give a rats arse anymore. The modern footballer (along with his agent) are only interested in size and length of contracts. The best deal.
A lot of players don't give a flying who the manager is. If they are not getting games, they either just sit  back and collect, or get there agent to find them a new gig.

I don't disagree on the wider point but if he's got a choice of two similar offers from clubs, does he go to the one that looks stable or the one who might get rid of the manager who wanted him? Look at how the value of some of our misfits have gone down over the last couple of years.

[brian green]

Steven R that is an excellent post.   I tried to quote on this thread the famous comment by Denis Healey about the British economy namely that the ultimate stability is the stability of the graveyard.   Stability in any enterprise will not succeed without risk taking.   Stability for stability's sake simply entrenches the status quo.   For there to be progress there has to be change for there to be change risks have to be taken, hard choices made.   Continuity, yes.   Consistency, yes.   Stability, not at the expense of hope and ambition.