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

[old man villa fan]

I actually think Lambert and the squad have underachieved massively with the talent available. If you have the ability to raise your game and beat 3 of the 4 contenders for the title, then we should have been able to more often than not against sides around or below us.

This is what I think. People say the players are no good, yet we've seen these same players give brilliant performances on several occasions. There's a pattern forming: every time a player gets written off he goes through a run of form (Vlaar, Delph, Westwood, Benteke). It can't be the case that the players are just rubbish - they're just inconsistent, and it's the manager's job to help them to be consistent. Lambert's strongest point, for me, is his ability to find good players in unlikely places - his weakest point, though, is getting them to play even half-coherently.

He is able to set up a team to beat a team that wants to attack us but has great difficulty with tactics and selecting players to beat teams that want to defend against us.

The inconsistency I put down to the inexperience with the young players mostly but at times it is down to them not having the grit and desire to win.  The latter is a worry because he has little in reserve if he wanted to drop a player who is not performing.

[caster troy]

Look at what Tony Pulis has done at Palace. (We have a much stronger squad than them with more Prem experience, I would expect we can all agree on that).

- Since taking over there they have won 6 out of 10 at home conceding only 8 goals. (We've only won 5 out of 16 and we've shipped 26 goals in the process.)

- We've won 9 games all season, Pulis has won 8 and he didn't join till the last game in November.

- Palace have had only one defeat by a three game margin during his reign (we have 3 times in the same period).

- Before he took over they were rock bottom with 7 points from 13 games and a -15 goal difference. They are now only 3 points behind us and play us at home soon.

- Under him they've won 38% of their total games, we're on 29%.

- It took Pulis 2 weeks to record 2 home wins, (both clean sheets) while it took Lambert 4 months.

Lambert has had 2 pre-seasons and 4 transfer windows to improve us, Pulis improved Palace in a matter of days. I am sick of hearing about injuries and lack of resources when we can't beat the likes of Palace, Sheffield United, Bradford etc. Lambert is an awful manager and the sooner we appoint someone better we will reap the reward. I don't particularly trust Lerner/Faulkner to bring in someone better but it would be good for them to at least try, they surely can't bring in anyone worse.

[Ger Regan]

Of course they could bring in someone worse, whatever Lambert's faults it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Of course they could bring in someone worse, whatever Lambert's faults it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

PWS for a start.

[PeterWithesShin]

Of course they could bring in someone worse, whatever Lambert's faults it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

PWS for a start.

We all want Charlie Adam in the starting 11.

[caster troy]

Blimey if Lerner is going to persevere with Lambert no matter what simply because he is afraid he'll only replace him with a worse manager we are well and truly done for.

Sure, technically we could do worse but the odds are against it in my opinion.

[Ads]

I think we will Lambert buy the players of quality to allow us to play the way he envisaged back in 2012.

[curiousorange]

I'm still unsure if Lambert is a manager being let down by naïve players, or not a very good manager. I don't think we're going to find that out until he's given funds to go after proven quality, and that's the catch 22: we'll have to trust him with money to prove we can trust him with money.

[caster troy]

We already have more quality than Bradford, Sheff Utd, Palace, Swansea, Fulham etc but couldn't beat them. What evidence is there to suggest that if we give Lambert more money for 'better' players that we would see any improvement?

[curiousorange]

We already have more quality than Bradford, Sheff Utd, Palace, Swansea, Fulham etc but couldn't beat them. What evidence is there to suggest that if we give Lambert more money for 'better' players that we would see any improvement?

Because those same players played excellently against all the teams currently making up the top four in the Premier League.

[john e]

We already have more quality than Bradford, Sheff Utd, Palace, Swansea, Fulham etc but couldn't beat them. What evidence is there to suggest that if we give Lambert more money for 'better' players that we would see any improvement?

Because those same players played excellently against all the teams currently making up the top four in the Premier League.

It is a conundrum so it is

[curiousorange]

I can't pretend it thrills me that I don't know if Lambert is any good or not, but I'd rather assume consistency rather than cluelessness is the problem.

[john e]

I can't pretend it thrills me that I don't know if Lambert is any good or not, but I'd rather assume consistency rather than cluelessness is the problem.

I don't know either mate

[garyshawsknee]

I actually think Lambert and the squad have underachieved massively with the talent available. If you have the ability to raise your game and beat 3 of the 4 contenders for the title, then we should have been able to more often than not against sides around or below us.

This is what I think. People say the players are no good, yet we've seen these same players give brilliant performances on several occasions. There's a pattern forming: every time a player gets written off he goes through a run of form (Vlaar, Delph, Westwood, Benteke). It can't be the case that the players are just rubbish - they're just inconsistent, and it's the manager's job to help them to be consistent. Lambert's strongest point, for me, is his ability to find good players in unlikely places - his weakest point, though, is getting them to play even half-coherently.

He is able to set up a team to beat a team that wants to attack us but has great difficulty with tactics and selecting players to beat teams that want to defend against us.

The inconsistency I put down to the inexperience with the young players mostly but at times it is down to them not having the grit and desire to win.  The latter is a worry because he has little in reserve if he wanted to drop a player who is not performing.

Your last sentence is the worry for me, come win,lose or draw, its pretty much the same players, regardless of form. The cheaper buys just haven't come off for us yet, though they are young and have time to improve.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

I can't pretend it thrills me that I don't know if Lambert is any good or not, but I'd rather assume consistency rather than cluelessness is the problem.

I'd say it's more the latter than the former though there is a combination.

I think that Lambert is a tinkerer rather than a strategic tactician. He doesn't have a big plan of how he wants his team to play, rather thousands of little plans that he tries out depending on the opposition. Strangely enough, I thought yesterday was one of the few times he actually asked the team to try and pass the ball and not hoof it. He looked like somebody had run over his puppy in his post match interview. I almost felt sorry for him but then remembered he's had more than 18 months to try and get the basics right and he only has himself to blame.