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

[Dave]

And what made it worse is that the one time we played a sensible pass through the middle, Weimann scored.

[Villa in Denmark]

I'll never completely shake the suspicion that Lambert was appointed because of singing his name at Norwich game under McLeish.

If they did get rid, who next.

Sean Dyche?

Not a suggestion by the way, more an expression of lack of faith in Lerner to appoint someone who can at least establish some sort of playing style that doesn't rely on sitting back and hoping.

[BegbieAV]

I would take Tony Pulis, did a great job at Stoke and he transformed Palace last season.

[Eigentor]

If I remember correctly, Stoke looked like a relegation candidate in Pulis' last season. Granted, he did a good job at Crystal Palace, but I'm not sure his skills set extends beyond making a team hard to beat and ugly to watch.

My prediction, if we appointed Pulis, is that he would make the team stronger in the short term by giving clear instructions about how to play. In he long run, the novelty would wear off, and the next time we hit bad form, some people would wonder how Lerner managed to appoint someone even worse than Lambert.

[Chris Smith]

If I remember correctly, Stoke looked like a relegation candidate in Pulis' last season. Granted, he did a good job at Crystal Palace, but I'm not sure his skills set extends beyond making a team hard to beat and ugly to watch.

My prediction, if we appointed Pulis, is that he would make the team stronger in the short term by giving clear instructions about how to play. In he long run, the novelty would wear off, and the next time we hit bad form, some people would wonder how Lerner managed to appoint someone even worse than Lambert.

I agree with that, you only have to remember the regular criticism O'Neill got over the style of football, and at a time when we were top 6, to suspect that patience with Pullis would be extremely short lived.

[Monty]

We're a bit of a hypocritical bunch when it comes to the style of play, though. We complain about MON, Eck and Lambert, but trying to progress to a slightly more modern style involves doing some very un-Villa things, like playing the ball patiently in midfield and running the risk of falling apart defensively. During Houllier's season, the discontent with some of the slower play, which is necessary to a passing style, was pretty palpable (there's always someone near you in VP who responds to every backwards or sideways pass with 'fuck's sake, goal's that way Villa').

The point is that nearly every style has boring and exciting aspects. If, like Lambert, you want to attack quickly and directly, the increased risk of your passes will mean that more go astray, meaning you'll probably have low possession statistics and spend a lot of time sitting behind the ball. If you want to play more of a passing style, it'll mean periods of slow ball-rotation in midfield. We're all obviously frustrated that we can't develop the latter, because it's probably more likely to lead to entertaining football on the whole and because we've been exposed to the limitations of the former for many years now, but I suspect a lot of fans aren't prepared to take the less-exciting aspects of that style either. I'm not convinced it's solely a 'Villa' thing (those awful dads shouting at their kids to 'get it up there' show how British the problem is, overall), but in my experience we're very much a party to it.

[curiousorange]

Much as his results bore fruit at Palace, I don't think I'd bother attending VP if Pulis became our manager. I'm sick of managers who only know how to play one brand of football.

I'm resolute in my belief that this squad of players could be safely ensconced in the top half of the table if they had a manager who knew what he was doing.

[Toronto Villa]

There is no doubt he made Palace strong and resolute when they most needed it. Just like he did with Stoke. Palace also played a lot better style of football which was a constituent of the players they had so fair play to Pulis for identifying the talent of the players available and making best use of them. However I suspect that after 2-3 years Palace would have been more Stoke than the Palace we saw as he would have fallen back on what he knows best. Big, strong players who fight hard, with the football side being eroded and sacrificed.

[OCD]

Pulis has also shown that he's quite happy to walk out on a club days before the season is due to start if he's not satisfied by the financial support on offer. We've been through that once.

[brian green]

I agree Mont that we must learn to play a patient probing style, but you put your finger on it when you described our players as nervous deer on spaghetti junction.   All the best teams play passing football, but when they press the button marked "go" they bloody go.   They change gear instantly from probing to penetration.   We just don't or can't do that.
How many times have you seen us thrust down the flanks only to have the player in possession stop to look for the next move?   They just do not get the need to run at the opposition to make the opponent commit himself.   Going through with a thrust will either end up with the opposition winning the ball, us winning the ball, us winning a free kick or a throw in.   Thus the laws of probability determine that pressing on with an attack is three times better than stopping.

[Toronto Villa]

Counter attack was best played under MON. With a younger, leaner Gabby, a rising star in Young, a  savvy monster like Carew being fed by the likes of Milner and Barry we were simply devastating at times. We played just how you described Brian. We could soak it up and then break with incredible speed. We neither have the defence now to absorb that level of pressure, nor the midfield to help us break quickly. We have done it on occasion but it is all too rare. We have turned into a team than keeps absorbing pressure until we eventually snap and concede.

[saunders_heroes]

I'm not fooled by Pulis' lucky few months at Palace (and him walking out with his stock still high), to me the real Pulis is the crap her served up at Stoke year in year out. Absolutely horrible football even if he did get the results to keep them in the league for so long. We want good attacking football at Villa not what Pulis (and Lambert for that matter) serves up.

[Monty]

Well, all the best teams can play both possession and on the break, but the rest of us mortal teams have to do our best at one of them. Naturally, even at the top teams lean one way or the other, as you can see when they play each other (Barca-Real is obviously the possession-counterattack match par excellence), but most of us have to be go after one or the other and do it as well as we can. Lambert's problem is that he appears to want to play a style which doesn't seem to exist, namely attacking at the speed of the counter, and somehow having a lot of the ball to give you a lot of chances to do it. He doesn't seem to think that attacking has to be structured at all.

[brian green]

I think Tony Pulis would get a very good response from the players in the short term but I fear that class outs in the long run and we would start to falter again.   Having come this far down this path of agony, let's get the next one right.   Let's have some swash and some buckle.  Merse Mk II fizzing the ball into the box and Yorke MkII heading it a foot off the ground into the top corner of the net.

[john e]

If I remember correctly, Stoke looked like a relegation candidate in Pulis' last season. Granted, he did a good job at Crystal Palace, but I'm not sure his skills set extends beyond making a team hard to beat and ugly to watch.

My prediction, if we appointed Pulis, is that he would make the team stronger in the short term by giving clear instructions about how to play. In he long run, the novelty would wear off, and the next time we hit bad form, some people would wonder how Lerner managed to appoint someone even worse than Lambert.

I also agree with you