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

[Concrete John]

A long term plan can still have quick fixes added to it as you go along to cover injuries, etc.

[Toronto Villa]

Exactly. He was a quick fix

He was a player that was available in January. I'm quite sure CJ is not suggesting signing the likes of Holt as an ongoing strategy.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Exactly. He was a quick fix

He was a player that was available in January. I'm quite sure CJ is not suggesting signing the likes of Holt as an ongoing strategy.

I think he's susggested exactly that in the post above yours.

[Toronto Villa]

Exactly. He was a quick fix

He was a player that was available in January. I'm quite sure CJ is not suggesting signing the likes of Holt as an ongoing strategy.

I think he's susggested exactly that in the post above yours.

No he's not. He's suggesting that it might happen to cover injuries, but not as a long term approach to squad building. If a player is made available in January next year that might help us, like any club we should look at that as a short term option. It is not the same as what the clubs long term strategy is which would be organic growth as well as a well thought out approach to player recruitment.

[not3bad]

Holt was brought in because Kozak was injured. It ain't rocket science our kid.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Holt was brought in because Kozak was injured. It ain't rocket science our kid.

I know it aint

I was just gently pulling Concrete up on the "no quick fix" claim. I really should have known better than to try and out-pedant ( is that a word? someone will tell me if it's not) some of the champions on here.

As you were

[Toronto Villa]

Slow day Chico?

[MarkM]

...There are no quick fixes for Villa...

Not exactly true.

Man City and Chelsea are 2 examples of a quick fix

Simply throw a huge amount of money at the problem consistantly [more than RL has / can] and you will show results.

RL chucked enough dosh in to get us moving in the top six, but to move any further up we needed more which he would not / could not provide so we have dropped away.

[Dante Lavelli]

Come the summer, Lambert should start from scratch, getting rid of all the young players and replace them with more experienced, older players. He has to play to his strengths. At Norwich he had a decent team made up of lower league finds that had a few years experience under their belts and relished the chance to step up a level. It's a formula that works for Lambert.

Young, talented, promising players need coaching. That appears to be his greatest weakness. It was a nice idea as well as a very cost effective one but if Lerner wants to persist with Lambert, he should at least allow him to do what he's good at, not expect him to be something he's not. It's like asking Big Fat Sam to have a team full of 8 stone weaklings. It's never going to work.

There is some truth in this.  Coaching does not appear to be his strength, albeit it is not something which most 'old money' managers do nowadays.  It might be a solution for him to take a step upwards and have a mariginally more strategic view and allow a head coach or new assistant manager to focus on the day-to-day stuff on the training pitch.  It might, depending on the new coach, complement Lambert's strengths quite well.

[Concrete John]

...There are no quick fixes for Villa...

Not exactly true.

Man City and Chelsea are 2 examples of a quick fix

Simply throw a huge amount of money at the problem consistantly [more than RL has / can] and you will show results.

RL chucked enough dosh in to get us moving in the top six, but to move any further up we needed more which he would not / could not provide so we have dropped away.

So, what do you suggest we do until the Sultan of Brunei decides to buy the club?

[MarkM]

...There are no quick fixes for Villa...

Not exactly true.

Man City and Chelsea are 2 examples of a quick fix

Simply throw a huge amount of money at the problem consistantly [more than RL has / can] and you will show results.

RL chucked enough dosh in to get us moving in the top six, but to move any further up we needed more which he would not / could not provide so we have dropped away.

So, what do you suggest we do until the Sultan of Brunei decides to buy the club?

I wasn't suggesting anything I was just pointing out that it is possible to short cut the league by chucking loads of money in

Realistically I would say that we have missed the gravy boat and as you say would need a sultan or such like to inject the cash if we were to challenge and i don't see any of them on the horizon

I do think it is possible to play decent football with our current resources, I don't however think that PL is the man to make that happen

[Concrete John]

I do think it is possible to play decent football with our current resources, I don't however think that PL is the man to make that happen

The point aside as to whether we play good football or not, my point was about the quality of player we have.  As regardless of style, that is the key factor as to what results we get.  Baggies under Mowbray being a prime example.

Could we change the style within the same budget?  Yes, we could.  But just don't expect the actual results to alter vastly without better quality in the squad. 

And to get that you either need the vast investment you suggest or the patience to develop our own talent.

[Monty]

Baggies under Mowbray is often brought up as the 'prime example', but it is in fact a bit of an anomaly. For years the promoted sides have generally played negative, old-fashioned football and it's tended to get them relegated. In recent years, more teams have been coming up from the Championship have been a bit braver and a bit smarter and a bit more modern, and these clubs have started to establish themselves as regulars. The idea that style and results are somehow not just divorced but antithetical is a myth.

[Chris Smith]

Baggies under Mowbray is often brought up as the 'prime example', but it is in fact a bit of an anomaly. For years the promoted sides have generally played negative, old-fashioned football and it's tended to get them relegated. In recent years, more teams have been coming up from the Championship have been a bit braver and a bit smarter and a bit more modern, and these clubs have started to establish themselves as regulars. The idea that style and results are somehow not just divorced but antithetical is a myth.

Like Stoke for example or West Ham perhaps?

Southampton are the obvious ones that conforms to your theory but they are the exception not the rule. Most of the recently promoted sides are below us in the table regardless of the style of football they have tried to play.

[Monty]

Baggies under Mowbray is often brought up as the 'prime example', but it is in fact a bit of an anomaly. For years the promoted sides have generally played negative, old-fashioned football and it's tended to get them relegated. In recent years, more teams have been coming up from the Championship have been a bit braver and a bit smarter and a bit more modern, and these clubs have started to establish themselves as regulars. The idea that style and results are somehow not just divorced but antithetical is a myth.

Like Stoke for example or West Ham perhaps?

Southampton are the obvious ones that conforms to your theory but they are the exception not the rule. Most of the recently promoted sides are below us in the table regardless of the style of football they have tried to play.

I'd have thought Swansea would be the most immediate example, but there we are.

The point is that this idea of style as unhelpful to getting points is, frankly, bollocks. If you play badly in any style you'll probably lose. Seeing as we're probably not going to go down I'd rather have us play more interesting and hopeful football, and football with much less of an obvious limit on it.