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

[kippaxvilla2]

Just heard Merson on Soccer Saturday.  He clearly still loves Villa.  He comes back to the point that has more than a hint of truth about it based on the way we play.  That Lambert is under no pressure at all if the brief is to keep us in the league.  Reckons Lerner might not even know the score against Palace (he was using artistic licence).

[rob_bridge]

I would go for calculating rather than evil.

And O'Leary?

[olaftab]

This poll was mentioned on 5Live Fighting Talk earlier.

[kippaxvilla2]

According to Jeff Stelling one of the forums described Lambert as The Grinch - I haven't seen that on here?!

[Stu]

I would go for calculating rather than evil.

And O'Leary?

Still calculating, but also arrogant and pompous in the extreme.

[KevinGage]

O'Leary was just a prat.

Most football managers are one part politician, one part PR guru and only one part actual football boss.

O'Leary's problem was that he did have talent as a manager, as evidenced by his early stint at Leeds and with us. But then he just kept on talking.

All that pish about "high tempo attacking football,"  was more for his journalist mates (Holt, Winter et al) than the saps who actually attended Villa games.  "Villa?   They play high tempo attacking football.  It must be true, because David O'Leary keeps on saying it."

I don't buy into the theory that O'Neill's departure was calculated to cause maximum damage, and I never did.  I think the realisation just hit him on the eve of the season that Brand O'Neill could take a battering.  Up until that point, he still probably backed himself to get around Faulkner and bring in the likes of Robbie Keane and McGeady. Despite Davies, NRC, Luke Young, Shorey and all the other surplus stock still being on the payroll.  When Lerner actually put his foot down for once, that was that.   Not getting the Liverpool job despite his mate Dalglish putting him forward for it earlier in the summer was also a blow to his delicate ego.

On the surface, McLeish was more affable and seemed to be more of a straight shooter than the above pair. That didn't stop him coming out with some very O'Leary-sque dribble about "Villa not having a divine right to finish top 10 despite winning a European Cup back in the 80's" when the pressure was on in the latter stage of the season.

He made sure that Charlie Nick, Jeff Stelling and even Rambo were able to dig him out too "Villa fans never gave him a chance"  becoming the catchall excuse for that dismal season.  How much more of a chance should a manager who delivered the lowest amount of home wins in the club's history been given?  As it was, we gave him far more of a chance than those 'proper' Liverpool fans gave Hodgson.

Unlike all of the above, for all his many faults, Lambert is at least respectful of the club's history.  Whether that is genuine respect, or just toadying to preserve his job I'm not entirely sure. I do think a point an earlier poster made is pretty close to the mark.  Essentially, it seems he has a free pass.  Do well, and he'll have turned the club around against the odds. Do badly, and it will be a case of "well, what can any manager do there with the current budget constraints."  It's that PR aspect again:  Thanks to Charlie Nick and co, he'll be able to walk away with his reputation largely intact.

[Ads]

That's a contradiction, to suggest O'Neill's departure wasn't calculated, but that he suddenly realised that brand O'Neill would be effected.

O'Neill knew what he was doing and he knew the financial reality of what was going on a lot sooner than 5 days before the start of the season. The man is a weasel and was incredibly obnoxious and rude to supporters at the Moscow dinner.

[pauliewalnuts]

Agree MON was pure evil and vindictive in the way he tucked us all up.

Pure evil is going a bit overboard. He didn't kill anyone or do any drive by shootings.

Well, not as far as we know, anyway.

[Damo70]

O'Leary was just a prat.

Most football managers are one part politician, one part PR guru and only one part actual football boss.

O'Leary's problem was that he did have talent as a manager, as evidenced by his early stint at Leeds and with us. But then he just kept on talking.

All that pish about "high tempo attacking football,"  was more for his journalist mates (Holt, Winter et al) than the saps who actually attended Villa games.  "Villa?   They play high tempo attacking football.  It must be true, because David O'Leary keeps on saying it."

I don't buy into the theory that O'Neill's departure was calculated to cause maximum damage, and I never did.  I think the realisation just hit him on the eve of the season that Brand O'Neill could take a battering.  Up until that point, he still probably backed himself to get around Faulkner and bring in the likes of Robbie Keane and McGeady. Despite Davies, NRC, Luke Young, Shorey and all the other surplus stock still being on the payroll.  When Lerner actually put his foot down for once, that was that.   Not getting the Liverpool job despite his mate Dalglish putting him forward for it earlier in the summer was also a blow to his delicate ego.

On the surface, McLeish was more affable and seemed to be more of a straight shooter than the above pair. That didn't stop him coming out with some very O'Leary-sque dribble about "Villa not having a divine right to finish top 10 despite winning a European Cup back in the 80's" when the pressure was on in the latter stage of the season.

He made sure that Charlie Nick, Jeff Stelling and even Rambo were able to dig him out too "Villa fans never gave him a chance"  becoming the catchall excuse for that dismal season.  How much more of a chance should a manager who delivered the lowest amount of home wins in the club's history been given?  As it was, we gave him far more of a chance than those 'proper' Liverpool fans gave Hodgson.

Unlike all of the above, for all his many faults, Lambert is at least respectful of the club's history.  Whether that is genuine respect, or just toadying to preserve his job I'm not entirely sure. I do think a point an earlier poster made is pretty close to the mark.  Essentially, it seems he has a free pass.  Do well, and he'll have turned the club around against the odds. Do badly, and it will be a case of "well, what can any manager do there with the current budget constraints."  It's that PR aspect again:  Thanks to Charlie Nick and co, he'll be able to walk away with his reputation largely intact.

I'm not sure his reputation is intact, I think it has taken a battering. I doubt his name cropped up around the boardroom table at Albion, Palace or Newcastle.

[supertom]

That's a contradiction, to suggest O'Neill's departure wasn't calculated, but that he suddenly realised that brand O'Neill would be effected.

O'Neill knew what he was doing and he knew the financial reality of what was going on a lot sooner than 5 days before the start of the season. The man is a weasel and was incredibly obnoxious and rude to supporters at the Moscow dinner.

He didn't seem his normal self in pre-season IIRC. Almost like he was going through the motions a little. I'd been feeling that before he upped and fucked off. That said I didn't think he'd walk in August. I figured he'd do one more season, we'd fall to mid-table then he'd call it quits. It all felt a bit lacklustre at the club too. Even before the Milner departure seemed a dead cert.

He knew full well what was coming and I'd imagine when it become abundantly clear he wouldn't get his own way any more, he fucked off. He definitely knew what he was doing by walking away a week before the season started.

[Matt Collins]

I thought we were quite good at swansea too. But the last two home games have been dirge

I didn't see hardy any of the Swansea game so I can't comment although I heard we were decent in the second half.

Swansea, just like a few other games recently, was like watching the baggies uner Mowbray, we kept the ball well and did look comfortable in possession but did absolutely nothing with it.

The highlights show us having four or five pretty good chances

[ciggiesnbeer]

I do still wonder what happened with MON. He has alluded in the past that fans never found out what happened and it still strikes me as odd.

He resigned ...but we paid him compensation? Lambert said that when he was interviewing for Villa he called MON who spoke in glowing terms about us. I don't get it.

Hard man to like (and I don't) but I am still very curious why and how that last few months all went down.

[paul_e]

I thought we were quite good at swansea too. But the last two home games have been dirge

I didn't see hardy any of the Swansea game so I can't comment although I heard we were decent in the second half.

Swansea, just like a few other games recently, was like watching the baggies uner Mowbray, we kept the ball well and did look comfortable in possession but did absolutely nothing with it.

The highlights show us having four or five pretty good chances

... in the last 5 minutes when it all got a bit desperate and we started being a lot more direct.

[silhillvilla]

Agree MON was pure evil and vindictive in the way he tucked us all up.

Pure evil is going a bit overboard. He didn't kill anyone or do any drive by shootings.

Well, not as far as we know, anyway.

He's renowned for his criminology studies . He'd be very good at covering his tracks.

[KevinGage]

That's a contradiction, to suggest O'Neill's departure wasn't calculated, but that he suddenly realised that brand O'Neill would be effected.

I don't think it is. 

To me it seems more plausible that he was gradually losing interest in the job since at least April 2010.

Being told that he'd have to get rid of 5 or 6 squad/ unfancied players before he could bring more in AND losing Milner in the same summer must have been hard to contend with too.  Particularly as he had almost always got his own way at most of the other sides he'd managed.

There were reports that we had gone over budget in 2009 (and possibly even in 2008), yet in the end, he was able to buy two new back fours in just over 12 months. It's widely known that he didn't get on with any of the Chief Excecs when he was at the club, so I don't see it as at all unusual that he would have navigated around them to deal directly with Lerner to get what he wanted.

Maybe it was a 'back me or I quit scenario' or maybe it wasn't. He'd done that at Celtic and Leicester, so it's quite possible he'd do it at he Villa too.  Perhaps Lerner just thought the sun shined out of his arse and was prepared to give him as much latitude as possible.   

Regardless, that all changed in the summer of 2010 - shortly after Faulkner was officially confirmed as Chief Exec. 

Whereas previously we might have gone over budget and allowed O'Neill to bring in the extra player or two (or four) he felt he needed, now he was having to sweat his assets. Not an unreasonable request. 

He might have agreed to that in May thinking he was off to Liverpool anyway, or that -when the crunch came- Lerner would back down again.  When it became in obvious in August that that wasn't actually going to happen, a job that was gradually losing its lustre anyway suddenly lost all appeal.

I don't buy this notion of him as some sort of Machiavellian genius, quietly plotting and waiting for the opportune moment to cause maximum damage. If we're going that route, why not wait until September 1st?   Having packed the squad out with a few more journeymen to really out the kybosh on the wage bill -and giving the new guy no opportunity at all to bring in his own players?