I must be in the minority...

[pauliewalnuts]

The absolute worst thing to happen would be to get rid of the manager now, with the future of the club in limbo. Once that is sorted the managerial situation will take care of itself.

Indeed. He fully deserves the sack, in my opinion, but as things stand right now, I'd say the managerial situation is one of the least important issues with this level of flux going on

[Toronto Villa]

Most of the players are off for a couple of weeks in the sun so Lambert's role is minimal. I don;t think Randy wants to string this out and my guess is he'll have already put the feelers out ahead of the official statement anyway.

[Gerrin]

The absolute worst thing to happen would be to get rid of the manager now, with the future of the club in limbo. Once that is sorted the managerial situation will take care of itself.

I think with the club now up for sale whoever takes over will give Lambert a chance to prove himself initially, if it doesn't work they can sack him relatively cheaply as he'll have less than 12 months on his contract.

[Dave Cooper please]

stability is needed ?

jesus wept

Better than instability surely?

[mr underhill]

with respect Gerrin I think the last thing a new owner is going to do is stick with what we have, as clearly none of it, or  very little, is worth sticking with. I get the feeling Lambert will walk if he gets no assurance from Randy of reasonable transfer funds and as we know,as  Randy's selling he's not likely to put his hand in his pocket very deeply, if at all. Celtic or someone like Leeds beckons for PL and I think that would serve his career better in the long run rather than toughing it out at VP

[Chris Smith]

The absolute worst thing to happen would be to get rid of the manager now, with the future of the club in limbo. Once that is sorted the managerial situation will take care of itself.

I think with the club now up for sale whoever takes over will give Lambert a chance to prove himself initially, if it doesn't work they can sack him relatively cheaply as he'll have less than 12 months on his contract.

My guess, and that's all it is a guess before anyone gets all indignant, is that Lambert will be here at least until Christmas. He will do his reputation no harm by showing loyalty now so, even if a new owner wants his own man, he will leave having been seen to be trustworthy.

[Keeno]

I think Lambert signed some pretty good players, actually - last season we saw what Westwood and Lowton can do when on form - but his coaching and tactics are so terribly inadequate that these players actually got worse the more we were exposed to them.

We have to wise up. We cannot accept, in 20-twatting-14, a manager who thinks that long balls to a big man are an acceptable attacking tactic, a manager who doesn't trust the idea of wingers, a manager who plays five at the back at home, a manager who thinks he's onto something novel with this 'number 10' concept and proceeds to patronise us all to death about it.

MON was stuck in the '70s, and it showed. Lambert is stuck in the '90s, and it's showing. We need a manager who understands the game as it's played now, and as fans we need to get out of our puritanical, skill-mistrusting, ploddy English biases and start to demand more thought and higher standards from our manager.

This is the best post I've seen on here in a while. Absolutely spot on. And hopefully new money - employing someone in a similar position to Txiki Begiristain at Man City - will recognise this too and made the according appointment. Too long we've been stuck in the stoic, 'Little England', 4-4-2 shaped rut that MO'N made 'ok' again during his time here. We've signed two more managers who try to replicate it - and look how that has turned out over the last three years. Even Tony Pulis has evolved as a manager in the last season (this shows in the long ball stats you mentioned) - the game has moved on and the incoming owner and manager(?) will hopefully see that we have not moved with it, and do something about it.

[Mister E]

I think Lambert signed some pretty good players, actually - last season we saw what Westwood and Lowton can do when on form - but his coaching and tactics are so terribly inadequate that these players actually got worse the more we were exposed to them.

Absolutely - what I've been saying for a while as well.
Given the financial constraints under whcih Lambert appears to have been working, his acquisition policy has been reasonable (although why he couldn't see the need for a couple of experienced MF to provide a framework in which the less experienced players could operate is beyond me).
It's always been his coaching and tactics - those things for which he was lauded at Norwich - that have let him down at Villa.

[curiousorange]

Tactically he is at best naive, at worst clueless. You can point to results against Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal and the like to prove me otherwise but you won't convince me they were much more than flukes.

To me, wanting Lambert to stay is that classic British thing of bigging up the underdog, wanting to blame poor results on anything but the actual cause. I like the guy, and he's probably as wound up right now as it's possible to be, but he was one of the reasons why we're terrible, and I would like to see a change in manager, transfer policy (before or after a takeover - I maintain there are others who might spend the pitiful amount he had in a different way or use the loan system more productively) and tactical thinking. This group of players cannot be as bad as they've been made to appear; some individuals are not PL standard but others are playing well within their ability.

That said, whatever Lambert said to make Christian Benteke sign a new deal must have been something very good indeed.

[mike]

So is this the thread for people who want him to stay and the other one for people who want him to go? Perhaps the existing one could be renamed I must be in the majority to make it clear.

[Gregorys Boy]

Tactically he is at best naive, at worst clueless. You can point to results against Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal and the like to prove me otherwise but you won't convince me they were much more than flukes.

To me, wanting Lambert to stay is that classic British thing of bigging up the underdog, wanting to blame poor results on anything but the actual cause. I like the guy, and he's probably as wound up right now as it's possible to be, but he was one of the reasons why we're terrible, and I would like to see a change in manager, transfer policy (before or after a takeover - I maintain there are others who might spend the pitiful amount he had in a different way or use the loan system more productively) and tactical thinking. This group of players cannot be as bad as they've been made to appear; some individuals are not PL standard but others are playing well within their ability.

That said, whatever Lambert said to make Christian Benteke sign a new deal must have been something very good indeed.

How the hell  do you get three results like that and all of them being flukes?  If you play well, and get your tactics right then how is that a fluke.  It is those results and performances which make the season all more of a let down.

[Villa in Denmark]

stability is needed ?

jesus wept

Better than instability surely?

Not if that stability is a stable pattern of barely managed decline.

Yes he's been restricted in the transfer market, but it was also him that  chose to ostracise Given and to an extent Hutton, that resulted in us paying out north of £50K per week on non-playing assets whilst paying a further what
£5-10K on replacements. (Steer and one of Lowton or Bacuna).
Going through 3 left backs in 2 seasons.

He could have used his budget on fewer more experienced players, and supplemented with our own academy graduates.

How many young players carriers, not to mention his own has he damaged over the last 2 seasons because he chose to ignore any option of experience other than Vlarr and to an extent KEA, denying the younger players a chance to adapt to this level, whilst being helped and guided through games by some older heads instead of the sink or swim approach we've seen?

Result? Just about treading water, but the current looks like pulling us under unless someone throws us a lifeline.

[paul_e]

I think Lambert signed some pretty good players, actually - last season we saw what Westwood and Lowton can do when on form - but his coaching and tactics are so terribly inadequate that these players actually got worse the more we were exposed to them.

Absolutely - what I've been saying for a while as well.
Given the financial constraints under whcih Lambert appears to have been working, his acquisition policy has been reasonable (although why he couldn't see the need for a couple of experienced MF to provide a framework in which the less experienced players could operate is beyond me).
It's always been his coaching and tactics - those things for which he was lauded at Norwich - that have let him down at Villa.

I agree that he's signed decent players in general, to me that's shown by the fact that, by and large, when we've played well and got points it's been on the back of individual brilliance rather than tactical excellence.  The sheer number of quality goals we've scored in the last 2 seasons backs this up.

[Villa in Denmark]

How the hell  do you get three results like that and all of them being flukes?  If you play well, and get your tactics right then how is that a fluke.  It is those results and performances which make the season all more of a let down.

I think flukes in terms of the way we set up is a little unfair.  If you look at where we've gained most points this season, it's been in games where the opposition have been willing to really push up against us and leave space for us to counter. Still more a case of the opposition allowing us to play to our one strength, rather than us imposing our game on the opposition.

Fluke might come into it when you look at why we could only raise ourselves for so few games to actually make use of our one tactic.

[simboy]

I think Lambert signed some pretty good players, actually - last season we saw what Westwood and Lowton can do when on form - but his coaching and tactics are so terribly inadequate that these players actually got worse the more we were exposed to them.

Absolutely - what I've been saying for a while as well.
Given the financial constraints under whcih Lambert appears to have been working, his acquisition policy has been reasonable (although why he couldn't see the need for a couple of experienced MF to provide a framework in which the less experienced players could operate is beyond me).
It's always been his coaching and tactics - those things for which he was lauded at Norwich - that have let him down at Villa.

I agree that he's signed decent players in general, to me that's shown by the fact that, by and large, when we've played well and got points it's been on the back of individual brilliance rather than tactical excellence.  The sheer number of quality goals we've scored in the last 2 seasons backs this up.

If he signed such good players who out of Tonev, Bowery, Helenius, Kozak, Bacuna, Luna were regular starters this season? Arguably, Kozak off the bench [and possibly regular after Benteke injury] and Baccuna, although out of position. I doubt any other manager in the Prem got in six players to "strengthen the squad" in the summer of last year and couldn't play any of them regularly.