So who do you want as the next Villa manager?

[old man villa fan]

ITK information - I have heard that in order to satisfy the vocal 'anybody but Lambert' section of supporters, Villa are about to appoint the El Dorado manager.  Although not mentioned previously and having never managed at this level or in the premier league, they believe he has all of the attributes to be a great manager.

[mr underhill]

he's probably just a gold digger

[peter w]

Ask Newcastle fans if they'd want Allardyce back, or West Ham fans if they want him now.

I appreciate things are bad now, but what I don't understand is why people think "he's better than Lambert" and accept that as enough. Surely if Lambert is that bad, it's easily possible to be better than him but still not be good enough?

And have people forgotten the horrible, embarassing, cynical offence to football which Pulis's Stoke were?

Football is supposed to be fun, the likes of Allardyce, Pulis and co make it anything but fun.

What's the point in jumping out of this frying pan and straight into another one? **







** Young Ones quote, there, I know it's meaningless.

Because Pulis saw what he had at Stoke and knew what tactically was needed to make them stubborn, tough to beat, and mid-table. He's done the same with Palace. Except, when looking at his team he made them tight but also they were looking to attack when they had the ball, and used their midfield playing with pace and with a threat. With the players at his disposal he has don't very well indeed. Giving him even better players at Villa will see him used them accordingly. And I really don't know what these new training techniques are that you accuse him of not having. If we're at the horses for courses stage I couldn't think ever anyone better than Pulis right now.

[pauliewalnuts]

Ask Newcastle fans if they'd want Allardyce back, or West Ham fans if they want him now.

I appreciate things are bad now, but what I don't understand is why people think "he's better than Lambert" and accept that as enough. Surely if Lambert is that bad, it's easily possible to be better than him but still not be good enough?

And have people forgotten the horrible, embarassing, cynical offence to football which Pulis's Stoke were?

Football is supposed to be fun, the likes of Allardyce, Pulis and co make it anything but fun.

What's the point in jumping out of this frying pan and straight into another one? **







** Young Ones quote, there, I know it's meaningless.

Because Pulis saw what he had at Stoke and knew what tactically was needed to make them stubborn, tough to beat, and mid-table. He's done the same with Palace. Except, when looking at his team he made them tight but also they were looking to attack when they had the ball, and used their midfield playing with pace and with a threat. With the players at his disposal he has don't very well indeed. Giving him even better players at Villa will see him used them accordingly. And I really don't know what these new training techniques are that you accuse him of not having. If we're at the horses for courses stage I couldn't think ever anyone better than Pulis right now.

Errr

And I really don't know what these new training techniques are that you accuse him of not having

I wasn't aware I had?

My point about Pulis was that, given time at Stoke, he produced a team which were the antithesis of entertaining football, which earned a reputation for every type of horrible gamesmanship you could think of.

I appreciate he's done well at Palace, but he's done it by harnessing the "never stop trying, never give up" thing, which is fine when you're trying to not get relegated, but isn't going to get you any further.

I would rather keep Lambert over appointing Pulis, and it's not even close.

[Monty]

Giving him even better players at Villa will see him used them accordingly.

That sounds a lot like the General's reasoning for appointing McLeish. And when he got his 'even better players' Pulis generally had no idea what to do with them, and the likes of Tuncay would find themselves sitting on the bench, watching giants of limited talent attempt to bludgeon their way to safety. Pulis has done well at Palace, but I won't forget how unbelievably terrible watching his Stoke side was.

[pauliewalnuts]

That sounds a lot like the General's reasoning for appointing McLeish.

I remember when he said "imagine what he could do with a chairman who backs him".

Then we all went away and tried to imagine it, and it wasn't pretty. Which is exactly how it turned out.

[ChicagoLion]

ITK information - I have heard that in order to satisfy the vocal 'anybody but Lambert' section of supporters, Villa are about to appoint the El Dorado manager.  Although not mentioned previously and having never managed at this level or in the premier league, they believe he has all of the attributes to be a great manager.

Punch Line?

[Louzie0]

Post underneath

[hilts_coolerking]

Okay, let's say for sake of argument that Larry Ellison buys the club and sticks £100M in the transfer kitty.  Hypothetically, which manager should we get?

[mr underhill]

well with that sort of money Ancelotti every time. Failing that a retired sea captain/sailor type with a passing interest in football. Maybe Ted Heath or Bluebeard.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Ask Newcastle fans if they'd want Allardyce back, or West Ham fans if they want him now.

I appreciate things are bad now, but what I don't understand is why people think "he's better than Lambert" and accept that as enough. Surely if Lambert is that bad, it's easily possible to be better than him but still not be good enough?

And have people forgotten the horrible, embarassing, cynical offence to football which Pulis's Stoke were?

Football is supposed to be fun, the likes of Allardyce, Pulis and co make it anything but fun.

What's the point in jumping out of this frying pan and straight into another one? **







** Young Ones quote, there, I know it's meaningless.

Because Pulis saw what he had at Stoke and knew what tactically was needed to make them stubborn, tough to beat, and mid-table. He's done the same with Palace. Except, when looking at his team he made them tight but also they were looking to attack when they had the ball, and used their midfield playing with pace and with a threat. With the players at his disposal he has don't very well indeed. Giving him even better players at Villa will see him used them accordingly. And I really don't know what these new training techniques are that you accuse him of not having. If we're at the horses for courses stage I couldn't think ever anyone better than Pulis right now.

Pulis spent £75m at Stoke.  He wasn't forced to play the kind of football he did due to lack of money. He chose to play horrible football

[hilts_coolerking]

I understand the criticism of Pulis but fuck me we haven't exactly set the world on fire with our own football for three years.  At least Pulis is effective.  We can't even say that.

[Monty]

He's as boring though. Even before the dreadful slide towards danger under Eck we were all bored half to death by the football - the results were just the rabbit-pellet cherry on the top of that particular turd-cake.

[Clampy]

After we beat them 2-1 at their place thanks to that Lowton goal, we had their local radio on in the coach park. Their fans were bloody slaughtering Pulis and his football.

[old man villa fan]

ITK information - I have heard that in order to satisfy the vocal 'anybody but Lambert' section of supporters, Villa are about to appoint the El Dorado manager.  Although not mentioned previously and having never managed at this level or in the premier league, they believe he has all of the attributes to be a great manager.

Punch Line?

Still trying to find it