Albrighton Going to Leicester

[Mr Diggles]

He's broke loads more records

Eg First loss at home to stoke in 50 odd years

what about Palace at home? what was that ?

I don't want to defend the record, nor trot out a clichι, but records are there to be broken, and quite a few teams were surprised by Crystal Palace once Pulis took over.

It's not the individual records themselves, which can happen, its the number of negative record breaking feats in a single season that is the issue. But again, is it a one-off, a blip of an horrendous season, or is it terminal under the current ownership/management? To be fair to both of those factors, it's hard for us as fans (and largely on the outside of the internal happenings of the club) to make a properly informed unbiased judgement.

All you can really say is that as shit as it is supporting the Villa at the moment, it could get worse or it could get better.

[ChicagoLion]

The only meaningful defence of Lambert is that he has been unlucky with injuries.

The debit side however is full with, what the Fcuk was going on with his coaching staff supposedly under his nose, if it wasn't under his nose then where the hell was he?
Look at the money he has wasted on crap players. Look at the god damn awful tactics. Look at the baffling way the team could go from playing well for a game then playing crap for 6 or 7. Look at the records he has broken. Look at the humiliating defeats he managed with a decent squad at his disposal. He is incredibly lucky to be in a job and being paid a Premier League Managers wages.

You don't understand finances + wages. There is plenty to defend Lambert if you choose to look at all the facts, and look at how other teams go from playing well one week to playing badly the next. In fact, imo if you took context of football as a whole, took context of the state we were in when he came, and appreciated he has had to lower the wage bill, hence buying players you dismiss as crap (without appreciating that cheap wages gets you what it gets you) then you'll see that at least from a financial point of view he has done a good job – a good job of running the club in a healthy state, and not say the way Redknapp likes to do business (spend loads on wages and fees, crippling clubs). He's bought enough decent players anyway, or at least got his moneys worth for what he paid for them (KEA/Sylla – as in, yeah they're not that good, but they were cheap and – as our wagebill has been reduced – cheaper than what came before).

The football side of things (which is the tip of the iceberg, but certainly not the whole issue) has been pretty uninspiring at times, but there are mitigating circumstances. The financial limitation is one. Injuries another. Trying to rebuild a club under limited funds is another as it will take time.

Youngest squad in the premier league (dictated/encouraged by financial constraints).  This is not a decent squad – it is an underfunded squad filled with young cheap buys and average academy players. We're doing better with him than we were doing before he came, with a vastly reduced squad. Funnily enough, sometimes he shows good tactical awareness – Liverpool away and so on – the results against Man City/Southampton this year etc, but they're totally dismissed.

He fixed our financial problems. If you don't appreciate just that, then I think you're not being honest with yourself. We were in trouble, now we're not.

You don't have to agree with me, but to say the only meaningful defence is injuries is a farce that ignores everything bar the most simple black and white view of where we are at the moment. Football bad = Lambert bad. Presumably you're impressed with how O'Leary and Redknapp got success at Leeds and Portsmouth? And yet, where are those clubs now? What happened to them when they were losing the money we were losing? Considering what's happened at Villa for the last four years your view is, imo, short sighted. 

We've had our moments anyway.

There are plenty of people who acknowledge - or as you say "understand" - the wage situation.

Where they differ from your point of view is that they don't think the wage situation explains or justifies just how shit we have been this season.

Have you not noticed tactical errors, for example?

Or even any sign of improvement of the young players already here, Baker Lowton Clark Albrighton Weiman, no they all went backwards, why was that? oh yes the lads at the training ground were bullying and apparently coming up with hoofball tactics. Whos fault was that? Who was responsible for Bradford, Shef Utd, Milwall Chelsea 8. The list goes on. What was the point in buying players who were not good enough just because they were cheap? Short sighted? I don't think so.

[Rolta]

The only meaningful defence of Lambert is that he has been unlucky with injuries.

The debit side however is full with, what the Fcuk was going on with his coaching staff supposedly under his nose, if it wasn't under his nose then where the hell was he?
Look at the money he has wasted on crap players. Look at the god damn awful tactics. Look at the baffling way the team could go from playing well for a game then playing crap for 6 or 7. Look at the records he has broken. Look at the humiliating defeats he managed with a decent squad at his disposal. He is incredibly lucky to be in a job and being paid a Premier League Managers wages.

You don't understand finances + wages. There is plenty to defend Lambert if you choose to look at all the facts, and look at how other teams go from playing well one week to playing badly the next. In fact, imo if you took context of football as a whole, took context of the state we were in when he came, and appreciated he has had to lower the wage bill, hence buying players you dismiss as crap (without appreciating that cheap wages gets you what it gets you) then you'll see that at least from a financial point of view he has done a good job – a good job of running the club in a healthy state, and not say the way Redknapp likes to do business (spend loads on wages and fees, crippling clubs). He's bought enough decent players anyway, or at least got his moneys worth for what he paid for them (KEA/Sylla – as in, yeah they're not that good, but they were cheap and – as our wagebill has been reduced – cheaper than what came before).

The football side of things (which is the tip of the iceberg, but certainly not the whole issue) has been pretty uninspiring at times, but there are mitigating circumstances. The financial limitation is one. Injuries another. Trying to rebuild a club under limited funds is another as it will take time.

Youngest squad in the premier league (dictated/encouraged by financial constraints).  This is not a decent squad – it is an underfunded squad filled with young cheap buys and average academy players. We're doing better with him than we were doing before he came, with a vastly reduced squad. Funnily enough, sometimes he shows good tactical awareness – Liverpool away and so on – the results against Man City/Southampton this year etc, but they're totally dismissed.

He fixed our financial problems. If you don't appreciate just that, then I think you're not being honest with yourself. We were in trouble, now we're not.

You don't have to agree with me, but to say the only meaningful defence is injuries is a farce that ignores everything bar the most simple black and white view of where we are at the moment. Football bad = Lambert bad. Presumably you're impressed with how O'Leary and Redknapp got success at Leeds and Portsmouth? And yet, where are those clubs now? What happened to them when they were losing the money we were losing? Considering what's happened at Villa for the last four years your view is, imo, short sighted. 

We've had our moments anyway.

There are plenty of people who acknowledge - or as you say "understand" - the wage situation.

Where they differ from your point of view is that they don't think the wage situation explains or justifies just how shit we have been this season.

Have you not noticed tactical errors, for example?

Or even any sign of improvement of the young players already here, Baker Lowton Clark Albrighton Weiman, no they all went backwards, why was that? oh yes the lads at the training ground were bullying and apparently coming up with hoofball tactics. Whos fault was that? Who was responsible for Bradford, Shef Utd, Milwall Chelsea 8. The list goes on. What was the point in buying players who were not good enough just because they were cheap? Short sighted? I don't think so.

You've basically proved what I said in the first place, that you don't understand the financial side of things.
The club was losing £50million a year, building depts of around £200 million. Again, see clubs like Portsmouth and Leeds if you think that's ok.
This isn't exact, but our expenditure was something like 75% wages, and the reason for that was to stop losing all that money, which we couldn't afford to lose (again, see Portsmouth, Leeds)
Lambert's remit under Lerner was to reduce the wage bill – clearly – even Mcleish talked about that.
Now, I'm at a loss that you fail to see the cause and effect in all this. We bought cheap players because we had to buy cheap players. That is how he reduced the wage bill. We bought young players on low wages, which reduced the wage bill. He replaced expensive experienced players with cheap players. If he had bought more expensive experienced players then the wage bill wouldn't have reduced, therefore he wouldn't have been solving the problem which could have crippled the club. When crippled is used in this context it means truly crippled – fucked us up for years.
By many accounts he has succeeded in his task as we have fixed our finances. Paul Lambert has done that and kept us in the premier league. It's no small feat what he's done, because most managers do well when they get to spend money (see MON). If you count the money he's saved and add that to the money he's spent on low-wage players, then he's really barely spent anything.

Now, the result of this cost cutting is that we have the youngest squad in the premier league, which goes some way to explaining the how inconsistent the team is. We also don't have a very big squad, with very few options, which makes being a tactical genius pretty difficult. This again can be explained by the finances. But again, Paul Lambert had to cut our expenditure. He had to do it. And he did it and kept us in the premier league. We were also definitely in a much safer position this year regarding relegation. We improved. And what's more. This year we barely had Benteke. The team as a whole has become more competent. Compare the goals from midfield last season to this season if you want to see that. If we'd had Benteke injured last season as much as he was this season we'd surely have been relegated. Paul Lambert has improved us this year. We are much more solid. We're clearly not perfect though, and with such little investment in the team, what more can you expect?

If you're going to obsess over individual results, then you should include and credit Lambert for all his exceptional results too – and don't forget we beat Man City to even get to that semi-final with Bradford. We lost to Bradford in one game and beat them in the other, and I don't know a single football team who hasn't lost to lower league opposition in the cups at some point. It happens all the time. Bradford knocked out Wigan before us, so does that make Martinez a bad manager? Or does shit just sometimes happen. Alex Ferguson got thrashed by Man City last season, Arsene Wenger got thrashed this season or the season before – I can't remember! Anyway, the point stands: shit results happen all the time and to everyone. You'd say having the youngest team in the premier league (and a cheap one at that) makes us more susceptable than most, but that comes down to the lack of investment in the team as much as anything.

As for the players: out of the five you mentioned, imo two of them at least may not be premier league standard no matter who is the manager. Players suffer for form. Again, it happens, and it happens for a hundred reasons (not least that some of them are in above their heads).
 

[Monty]

Rolta, it all comes down to the fact that you think: firstly, Lambert must either be a good or a bad manager, look at the signings, therefore he's good, without realising that the nuance might be that he can spot a player but doesn't have the tactical awareness to use them properly; and secondly, that your opinions are facts, and anyone who disagrees with you has just misunderstood your message, like Zarathustra coming down the mountain. It's wearying - answer the points put to you, or stop posting interminable essays where you say the same thing over and over again in an increasingly insulting and hysterical manner.

[Rolta]

Rolta, it all comes down to the fact that you think: firstly, Lambert must either be a good or a bad manager, look at the signings, therefore he's good, without realising that the nuance might be that he can spot a player but doesn't have the tactical awareness to use them properly; and secondly, that your opinions are facts, and anyone who disagrees with you has just misunderstood your message, like Zarathustra coming down the mountain. It's wearying - answer the points put to you, or stop posting interminable essays where you say the same thing over and over again in an increasingly insulting and hysterical manner.

Actually, what I'm saying is that what's gone on at Villa is more complicated then most people make out. In that light, I think people are scapegoating the manager without really thinking. "He's bought shit players therefore he's shit". I am all about the nuance. The nuance is my point. I don't think he's been perfect by any means, but surely the definition of nuance in this situation is that it is hard to make a black and white definition. I've never said "Lambert is good". I've just described the points I think people keep missing.

That's what I'm saying when I say someone has misunderstood, it's when they say something clearly missing the picture. Chicago Lion questioned why he bought cheap players! Well, the answer is pretty obvious, eh. Because we had no money and we had to save money.

I did answer the points put to me, possibly though in a progressively insulting and hysterical manner (yes, that is what it feels like )

[JUAN PABLO]

I think he has bought too many shit players where he could have bought a few less players with better wages etc and mixed some with the youth .

[Monty]

He may have been wrong about that, but you have utterly failed to answer the point about Lambert's long-ball tactics, which really are indefensible when it's so obvious that these players, when they play well, play a style based on high pressing and passing on the ground, not sitting deep and chasing long balls. Despite this self-evident situation, Lambert kept up the same tactics game after game after game, as if he's actually got no mind.

[JUAN PABLO]

at the end of the day , what he has spent with the regulars who were over a quarter of the first team and the youth , he still should have finished higher than he did and the football should not have been that dire.

[Rolta]

He may have been wrong about that, but you have utterly failed to answer the point about Lambert's long-ball tactics, which really are indefensible when it's so obvious that these players, when they play well, play a style based on high pressing and passing on the ground, not sitting deep and chasing long balls. Despite this self-evident situation, Lambert kept up the same tactics game after game after game, as if he's actually got no mind.

Ok, I'll answer. I wasn't ignoring anything. I hate the long ball tactics! As I say, I'm not trying to defend Lambert blindly – but I do feel that what I have "gone on about" is as relevant, if not more, than anything else (and keeps being forgotten – that's the reason I bring it up). After all, you need investment to get anywhere in football, particularly in the premier league, where all the other teams are spending millions on their teams. Every year we compete with plenty of teams spending millions more than us and also three of the best run teams from the division below. We've been a mess, and a mess before he came. With the finances fixed, he has definitely done something for the club giving him credit for.

As for the long balls, I can only hope that it was part of an effort at making us more solid this year, and that given the opportunity to actually buy some better players he might abandon it. At least we've seen glimmers that Lambert wants to play better football. With such low investment you can't possibly expect everything all at once. Even if he was direct with Norwich, at least they were an exciting enough team. To back this up, we have indeed been much more solid this year – the cost has been that we have been pretty awful to watch.

[Rolta]

at the end of the day , what he has spent with the regulars who were over a quarter of the first team and the youth , he still should have finished higher than he did and the football should not have been that dire.

Ok, but I completely disagree. Averaging £2million on players with low wages doesn't get you much. You think it does, I don't. Look at the amounts other teams spent in comparison and even if they have spent little, then look at the numbers of players they have brought in. For example, where we have bought 20 players in two seasons, Crystal Palace have bought 40. We can all accept that buying cheap increases the likelyhood of buying some duds, increases the chances of more misses that hits – well that's the market we're in.

He also had £10million of his investment injured all year – plus Benteke and it's £17 million. Okore and Kozak might have made up four or so points, which would have got us 12th.

[Monty]

As it turns out, being more solid has got us fewer points, and whenever we reverted to something which looked like the previous season we looked a lot better. But even last season we looked a little haphazard even when playing well - there's no plan in possession, no purpose, no sense that the players have been instructed how and where to move in relation to each other, as there is even when watching Sunderland last year. He may sign good players, but if his tactics are inadequate (and I'm sorry, thinking that long balls are a viable attacking tactic is just inadequate), then it's like buying great nails then trying to hammer them in with a slab of wet jelly.

[Rolta]

As it turns out, being more solid has got us fewer points, and whenever we reverted to something which looked like the previous season we looked a lot better. But even last season we looked a little haphazard even when playing well - there's no plan in possession, no purpose, no sense that the players have been instructed how and where to move in relation to each other, as there is even when watching Sunderland last year. He may sign good players, but if his tactics are inadequate (and I'm sorry, thinking that long balls are a viable attacking tactic is just inadequate), then it's like buying great nails then trying to hammer them in with a slab of wet jelly.

Last year we were truly under threat from relegation. This year we were safe in about March (as it turns out). Like it or not (well, nobody actually likes the long balls) we have been more solid this year. We finished in exactly the same place in the league, with exactly the same 5 point gap from relegation. That was with an awful period of results at the end of the season – when we've been missing our talisman and other players, no less. So, there's you doing that black and white, non-nuanced arguement you so kindly warned me against.

We need stability at the club, that's where I'm coming from. That's all I'm doing here. I'm afraid of this grass-is-always-greener thinking, and I think a lot of it is embroiled in a very negative spinning of the facts. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but for me that doesn't mean you have to sack the manager. I think he's come into a bit of a shit job and he's doing it about as well as I think anyone could.

[Monty]

I too am suspicious of grass-is-greener, but any grass is greener than mud. So we were made more stable by having exactly the same season, only consistently more depressing to watch. Some progress.

[Rolta]

I too am suspicious of grass-is-greener, but any grass is greener than mud. So we were made more stable by having exactly the same season, only consistently more depressing to watch. Some progress.

lol, ok, there goes your nuance again. You want better – go find us an owner who'll throw his money away on big wages and fees.

[Steve67]

Both seasons under Lambert have been a disaster. Make all the excuses you want. Lambert has not organised them well enough, motivated them enough, ostracized certain players he will now come to rely on, lost to some really shocking teams, he signed some of the worst players I have ever seen in a Villa shirt, continued to play them. The wage bill has been cut, Randy has lost heart. Villa are in a mess. Defending a poor manager in a poor situation, with a poor owner. A recipe for disaster.