Lambert's worst signing?

[Dave]

I thought Paul Lambert was divorced.   Has he re-married?

I don't know his intricate family details, but surely Karsa being married to Lambert's sister would also make him his brother-in-law?

[brian green]

Yes, Dave, that dawned on me just as I pressed the "send" button.

[silhillvilla]

I'm jumping on the Culverhouse out bandwagon . Shit coach, horrible person. Bomb squad him. 

[Dave]

I'm jumping on the Culverhouse out bandwagon . Shit coach, horrible person.

Surely nobody has any idea of this apart from the players being coached by him? He could be dreadful, but unless you're reducing this to the completely simplistic "we're not great therefore a random coach who had a go at some supporters must be completely to blame", we don't really know one way or the other.

As has been said earlier in the thread, for all we know all the good stuff is Culverhouse and all the bad stuff is Lambert.

[Monty]

I like Kozak, but signing him looks like bad judgement when we're so lacking in attacking midfield. Looked like an indulgence, especially at the price.

That's if you think it was an either or decision.

Too often we assume that we do not sign players because the manager didn't want to rather than them not being available or not agreeing to terms or choosing to go elsewhere.

You can only fully judge this process at the end.

This one has been done quite a lot, but the facts remain that a very large portion of our transfer budget was spent, over the odds, on a player in a position which was already relatively strong. I'd be surprised if by paying similarly over the odds, with the Kozak money in addition to whatever else was available, we couldn't have got the playmaker we've been lacking for years and years. It shows that Lambert will pay over the odds for one position and not for another, and a position we're already alright in to boot (pun intended).

[Dante Lavelli]

Why do you say 'over the odds' Monty?  6m doesn't buy very much these days.
However I agree that it would have been better spent elsewhere.

[Ian.]

I cant actually criticise any of his signings. Given the budget he has had to spend on players and transfer fees.  A team built on that hovering around mid table is actually quite an achievement.
Even the players who I don't think are going to make it or maybe not good enough to sustain a future here, ie Bowery it's not as if they have cost us a great deal. Even Luna and Tonev where the jury is still out, the fees are so low its not a major problem.

I like Kozak and can't wait for him to be fit again. His goals have been good. People mention we had Bent but he dried up and his wages are massive.

If anything I'd be more worried about tactics more than his signings which have mainly been bloody good considering the costs.

[silhillvilla]

I'm jumping on the Culverhouse out bandwagon . Shit coach, horrible person.

Surely nobody has any idea of this apart from the players being coached by him? He could be dreadful, but unless you're reducing this to the completely simplistic "we're not great therefore a random coach who had a go at some supporters must be completely to blame", we don't really know one way or the other.

As has been said earlier in the thread, for all we know all the good stuff is Culverhouse and all the bad stuff is Lambert.

You're not changing my mind

[Dave]

I'm jumping on the Culverhouse out bandwagon . Shit coach, horrible person.

Surely nobody has any idea of this apart from the players being coached by him? He could be dreadful, but unless you're reducing this to the completely simplistic "we're not great therefore a random coach who had a go at some supporters must be completely to blame", we don't really know one way or the other.

As has been said earlier in the thread, for all we know all the good stuff is Culverhouse and all the bad stuff is Lambert.

You're not changing my mind

No, you're quite right.

Things aren't great, so let's assume that it's the fault of random person X in spite of there being no real evidence for it. And that sacking them is going to be the solution to the problem.

Whatever gets you through the day.

[Isa]

I'm not sure exactly how anybody can say with any certainty, or foundation for that matter, how good a coach Culverhouse is. Unless I've missed something?

[Monty]

Why do you say 'over the odds' Monty?  6m doesn't buy very much these days.
However I agree that it would have been better spent elsewhere.

£6/7m bought us Benteke, and that's how we're going to have to spend money with our budget - or perhaps slightly less spectacularly than that, but certainly in the bargain world. Kozak is a perfectly good player in his own way but he's the sort of player we should be signing for £4m, if that makes sense, or perhaps spending £6/7m if he's in a really must-sign position. I actually like Kozak quite a lot, but it is a strange deal.

[Dave Clark Five]

I'm jumping on the Culverhouse out bandwagon . Shit coach, horrible person.

Surely nobody has any idea of this apart from the players being coached by him? He could be dreadful, but unless you're reducing this to the completely simplistic "we're not great therefore a random coach who had a go at some supporters must be completely to blame", we don't really know one way or the other.

As has been said earlier in the thread, for all we know all the good stuff is Culverhouse and all the bad stuff is Lambert.

You're not changing my mind

No, you're quite right.

Things aren't great, so let's assume that it's the fault of random person X in spite of there being no real evidence for it. And that sacking them is going to be the solution to the problem.

Whatever gets you through the day.

O'Leary got slated for having a go at Villa fans. I don't see why Culverhouse should get away with it.

[Kurudi]

My brother was sat very close to Culverhouse when he was gobbing off and wanted to smash his head in. He was also a bastard when Baker got his head-knock and was throwing up green. Him and Lambert kept trying to get him back on the pitch when it was pretty clear he was in distress.

Can't stand the ******.

[Dave]

I'm jumping on the Culverhouse out bandwagon . Shit coach, horrible person.

Surely nobody has any idea of this apart from the players being coached by him? He could be dreadful, but unless you're reducing this to the completely simplistic "we're not great therefore a random coach who had a go at some supporters must be completely to blame", we don't really know one way or the other.

As has been said earlier in the thread, for all we know all the good stuff is Culverhouse and all the bad stuff is Lambert.

You're not changing my mind

No, you're quite right.

Things aren't great, so let's assume that it's the fault of random person X in spite of there being no real evidence for it. And that sacking them is going to be the solution to the problem.

Whatever gets you through the day.

O'Leary got slated for having a go at Villa fans. I don't see why Culverhouse should get away with it.

Quite possibly, but that doesn't have anything to do with good a coach he may or may not be.

[Sexual Ealing]

Culverhouse is just as culpable as Lambert in the inadequacies of coaching the best out of the players we do have (Tonev - don't shoot from thirty yards out, Weimann - don't snatch a shooting opportunities, KEA -front up your opponent just like you did against Norwich, Bennett - don't roam in field, Baker - don't let one mistake blow your game to pieces, - Vlaar - you are the captain talk to the referee frequently but respectfully etc etc).   As I have commented on other threads you can see there is a good team in there when we play like we did in the second quarter last Saturday.   That ability has to be brought out and that is Lambert's job and equally the job of the team he was allowed to bring with him.   You can carry a dud player or two, you can't carry a dud coach.

From what I've read on Norwich forums, they rate Culverhouse above Lambert and would have him back tomorrow. They credit him as the footballing brains behind the pair with Lambert best serving as the figurehead. There was a few stories of how Culverhouse would prepare the team during the week, tactics, formation, set pieces etc only for Lambert to come in on a Friday and change everything leaving the players clueless to what they're supposed to do.

How true it is, I've no idea but our players certainly give the impression they have no game plan most weeks. Like you Brian, I'm more than convinced there's a good team in there but for whatever reason the coaching or lack of it, is our greatest weakness. I'd love to see what a decent coach could do with this team but more importantly, to have a plan based around buying young talent needs a good coach and manager to develop them which is something we don't appear to have.

Maybe people on forums generally know fuck all about the inner-workings of the coaching set up?