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

[Monty]

I'm reminded a bit oddly of when Sir Menzies Campbell became leader of the Lib Dems a little while back. The general assessment was that, after the Charles Kennedy drink problem stuff, Campbell was 'a safe pair of hands', that he would bring 'stability' to the party. But in politics as in football, safe pairs of hands tend to hold the party back, and stability is just a synonym for stagnation, for loss of momentum. Both are arenas where you need to move forward to stand still - and we're trying to stand still and in danger of going backwards.

[Brend'Watkins]

Is stability the right word in this context? I don't think so when you see that we are as stable as we were last season. I for one am not a fan of this stability.

[brian green]

The Menzies the Merciless example is perfect Monty.   Charles Kennedy had/has no more of a drink problem than many past excellent party leaders of all parties.   The smart move would have been to leave him in place, just like I think the smart cricket move would have been to leave Andy Flower in place.   English cricket will no doubt be stable in the future but they will be another ten years in the wilderness if they are not careful.

[Monty]

Flower and Pietersen out was not necessarily a smart move, as removing Kennedy wasn't. But Kennedy I suppose has a parallel in Houllier, in that his problems as a leader were beginning to diminish but he was struck by an external circumstance and just couldn't stay. Eck was also a Sir Menzies style appointment, the safe pair of hands myth, but it's a myth bought into completely by our board as they went out and just got another one.

[OCD]

With the Houllier thing, when Martinez didn't happen and assuming there were no other truly worthy candidates, I would have rather Gary McAllister got the job than McLeish (which must be one of the strangest appointments in recent times). GMac had done well in Houllier's absence, had seen what had gone on in the past 9 months, what needed fixing...and the footballing philosophy would have continued. Hearing him on commentary the other day made me think that he would have promoted Guzan to number one that summer and we wouldn't have wasted money on Given's contract.

[old man villa fan]

Getting back to football and Aston Villa in particular, there needs to be some stability at the club so that things that need to change, can be changed without unsettling everything.

Two things that concern me and they have been mentioned by others:

• If the manager is sacked, it has a knock on effect on the playing side as a new manager wants to bring new players that he likes and sometimes gets rid off players that should be kept
  
• managers tend to have their own backroom staff that rarely change because of loyalty

If a manager has poor coaches behind him, sometimes a good manager can fall because of it and also you do not have anybody within the club that can be promoted to maintain some stability.

With a young team, you have to rely a lot on confidence.  We see this with the team at the moment, brilliant one minute and a pub team at other times.  One thing that is sure to undermine confidence is turmoil in the club.  Experienced players can handle change as they have mostly seen it before but young players, particularly those bought or promoted by the manager, usually cannot.

We need change, I believe, but not complete change.  I still believe that a little more money being made available and that invested in the right areas (mostly midfield) will see a big difference.

[olaftab]

Reading posts by Monty and Brian I am inclind to think Hitler was good for Germany if only he had courted stability after his initial success in becoming their Fuehrer!

[Monty]

Reading posts by Monty and Brian I am inclind to think Hitler was good for Germany if only he had courted stability after his initial success in becoming their Fuehrer!

I don't know if that's wrong, offensive or just plain demented.

[Legion]

Sarcastic?

[Monty]

Sarcastic?

Well yeah, but below that the sentiment expressed is mysterious. Wrongheaded, I think, probably the best description of it.

[olaftab]

I refuse to comment further as I am sure an explanation would be at best misunderstood or worse wrong.

[brian green]

And you might spell correctly.

[Monty]

No further explanation needed. The first person to irrelevantly bring the Nazis into a debate has automatically lost.

[PeterWithe]

No further explanation needed. The first person to irrelevantly bring the Nazis into a debate has automatically lost.

*Takes first look at thread. Re-reads thread title. Looks puzzled. Starts at beginning*

[brian green]

Sorry, that was a cheap shot.   My generation does not have the latitude to accept Adolf Hitler as a subject of humour or levity.