Albrighton Going to Leicester

[pauliewalnuts]

I bet that trophy on Paul's mantelpiece with the words 'didn't get spanked 8-0' engraved shines bright.

I hope it's bigger and spanglier than the "Most Home Matches Lost in 140 Year History" trophy, too.

[Havencheese]

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 lost 20 games out of 38. How is that 'more solid'?

Fewer goals conceeded, not ever getting spanked 8-0.

Well, we conceded 26 goals in our last 9 games which was bad enough in itself.

Any argument, however long and condescendingly written, which includes the premise that we were 'more solid' this season is hard to take seriously. Any argument that includes 'at least we didn't lose 8 - 0' demeans what we expect of Aston Villa. In fact it would demean any club.

Whether we were more solid is debatable, in fact it's a difficult argument to defend, perhaps what Rolta is getting at is that the idea was more so for stability in counter attacking than going all out. I think in comparing the two seasons, the complexities, twists and turns is hard. I still think if we'd have had three out of those four major injuries reduced to a few weeks as opposed to season ending - we'd have been at least closer to 10 points better off having said that there was still some purposeless and bafflingly clueless football played on the park this season.

[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.

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.

And there yet again you commit your principle fallacy, namely the assumption that it's all about the money. I'm not arguing this with you - I think that Lambert has proved himself actually pretty astute with signings. The problem with him is that it almost doesn't matter how much money you give him, he'll always perform slightly below expectations with us. Why? You'd say it's because our expectations are too high; I'd say it's because we've seen Rodgers and Martinez and Poyet survive and sometimes thrive with a bit of style, with a way of playing which gives the fans hope and a reason to show up. Lambert could be the greatest player-spotter ever - he still thinks that lumping the ball to the big guy is a viable tactic (incidentally, when there wasn't much money to spend, he spent a whole summer  tracking a £7m Big Man forward who wasn't even coming to be first choice. To do that instead even of signing a Hoolahan or loan player simply exposes his priorities).

[steffo]

Just like 87 - Doug went on a 3 year cost cutting exercise which resulted in relegation. If things stay as they are we all know what's going to happen.

Perhaps fate will lend it's hand again. After a horrid start next season Faulkner sacks Lambert. Big Sam is appointed in October. Lack of quality sends us and West Ham down with Burnley. A la McNeil in 87 a claret and blue nightmare.....................

[olaftab]

Fewer goals conceeded, not ever getting spanked 8-0.

You know its so easy to forget how good we have been  this season gone. Thank you Rolta for reminding us.

[paul_e]

My bigger issue than the long balls and the results is the complete misapplication of the spending policy.  By that I mean, if you're going to buy cheap kids to keep costs down the absolute number 1 priority is to be sure you've got a fan-fucking-tastic coaching system which will improve those players. Buying kids for £1m and selling them on for £3-4m (on average) is exactly what we should've been looking to do, completely reverse the mon trend of players having no sell on value.  That way the club starts to build some funds whilst still getting the 'bomb squad' off the wage bill, meaning that, as the wage situation was eased we had a squad of youngsters who were playing as a unit and enough money in the bank to add a couple of higher profile players to the mix.

What actually happened is that we completely failed on the coaching side with nothing like enough work on basic skills.  Where that shows is that when the players are under pressure they fall back to what they know from training.  For villa last year that meant defend the box and get the ball away, hopefully setting up a counter attack. As soon as there was a bit of confidence there that style went away and we played like we did against, for example, Norwich where we ripped them to bits for an hour.

[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.

And there yet again you commit your principle fallacy, namely the assumption that it's all about the money. I'm not arguing this with you - I think that Lambert has proved himself actually pretty astute with signings. The problem with him is that it almost doesn't matter how much money you give him, he'll always perform slightly below expectations with us. Why? You'd say it's because our expectations are too high; I'd say it's because we've seen Rodgers and Martinez and Poyet survive and sometimes thrive with a bit of style, with a way of playing which gives the fans hope and a reason to show up. Lambert could be the greatest player-spotter ever - he still thinks that lumping the ball to the big guy is a viable tactic (incidentally, when there wasn't much money to spend, he spent a whole summer  tracking a £7m Big Man forward who wasn't even coming to be first choice. To do that instead even of signing a Hoolahan or loan player simply exposes his priorities).

Ok, well lets forget the sniping for a bit. I will say, I don't think it's a fallacy to suggest that the lack of money and cost cutting is a bigger issue than some people on here suggest. It might not be your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fallacy. Maybe I can get carried away sometimes with the way I put things though, so no bother.

The 8-0 comment was a bit off the cuff, and it's being twisted a bit. The run-in did change what was looking to be a much rosier picture (not saying that justifies it or we were playing nice football). But, if you compare last season to this one, we have been mid-table/just-about-top-half for most of the season while last season we were right down the bottom, in the relegation zone for much of it. That is part of the evidence for us being more solid. That's what I mean by it. We were never truly at risk of relegation, while last season it took a huge Benteke-led final run-in to get us out of trouble.

We didn't have Benteke for our run-in last season.

So you bring up Rogers, Poyet and Martinez... What Poyet did was pretty much what we did last season under Lambert, so if you credit Poyet, then surely Lambert gets credit for what he did? Granted, Poyet did better. Anyway, I'm going to go through that Sunderland team and see how much they were all bought for in a mo. Martinez got Wigan relegated. Martinez and Rogers also had a lot longer at their clubs to build the squad. My non-fallacy argument, different opinion to yours, is that the investment levels have crippled us. And on the basis, with such low investment, Lambert needs time and the club needs to keep its head. It is inevitable with such little money that we are going to be a work in progress for a while – unless we get new Man-City-type owners to throw money at us. We have seen us play more attractive football under Lambert, so it is in his locker – he might still be direct, but not every team try to emulate Barcelona/Arsenal. There are more than one ways to play football.

So a comparison between what Poyet had to work with and what Lambert had to work with.

Sunderland vs. WBA, their last win.

25 Mannone–––––––––––––––––––––£2.1million
27 Vergini–––––––––––––––––––––––loan
28 Alonso–––––––––––––––––––––––loan
33 Cattermole (Giaccherini - 88' )––––£6.1 million
16 O'Shea–––––––––––––––––––––––£3.9 million
05 Brown–––––––––––––––––––––––£1.3 million
07 Larsson––––––––––––––––––––––free
14 Colback––––––––––––––––––––––academy
10 Wickham (Altidore - 61' )––––––––£7.9 million
11 Johnson (Bridcutt - 61' )–––––––––£11.9 million
31 Borini––––––––––––––––––––––––loan (fee £1.5million)

Substitutes
02 Bardsley––––––––––––––––––£2.6 million
17 Altidore–––––––––––––––––––£8.8million
22 Ba–––––––––––––––––––––––free
23 Giaccherini––––––––––––––––£6.6million
26 Bridcutt–––––––––––––––––––£3.2million
30 Scocco––––––––––––––––––––£3.2million
32 Ustari–––––––––––––––––––––free

that's–––––first team: £34.7 million
––––––bench options: £24.4 million
––––total for the day: £59.1 million


Now, us on the same day:

01 Guzan––––––––––––––––––––––––––free (add 800k if you want his original cost)
34 Lowton–––––––––––––––––––––––––£3.3 million
23 Bertrand (Grealish - 88' )–––––––––––loan
06 Clark Booked (Robinson - 79' )––––––academy
02 Baker––––––––––––––––––––––––––academy
04 Vlaar–––––––––––––––––––––––––––£3.3 million
08 El Ahmadi–––––––––––––––––––––––£2.4 million
15 Westwood–––––––––––––––––––––––£2.2 million
21 Bowery (Bacuna - 59' )––––––––––––500k
10 Weimann––––––––––––––––––––––––academy
16 Delph Booked––––––––––––––––––––£8.3 million

Substitutes
07 Bacuna–––––––––––––––––––––––––800k
13 Steer––––––––––––––––––––––––––500k
18 Sylla––––––––––––––––––––––––––£2.1 million
24 Tonev–––––––––––––––––––––––––£2.8 million
29 Holt–––––––––––––––––––––––––––loan
37 Robinson–––––––––––––––––––––––academy
40 Grealish––––––––––––––––––––––––academy

that's–––––first team: £20 million (and £8.3 million on one player, bought in our golden times. The rest of the team is worth £11.7 million)
––––––bench options: £6.2 million
––––total for the day: £26.2 million

All this is from transfermarket, but it's the best available. Sunderland beat WBA 2-0 and we lost to Man City 4-0.

The way I see it is this. We know Lambert has it in him to want to play better football. We've all seen it. This isn't like with Mcleish where it was genetic. So there must be another reason we've been so different this year to last. Personally, I think he has struggled with getting true quality in the transfermarket – I think we've bought servicable players on the whole – and we have spent on average very little under him while still reducing wages. I think he has as much faith in the team as I do. I think we have an awful squad – cheap though, what we paid for. I can believe he changed our style of play this year in an effort to at the very least avoid the relegation risk of the season before. The reality is like I said above, this season we have been mid-table all season with a dip at the end coinciding with missing our talisman. Last season we were in the bottom three and battling to get out of it, getting out of it with our talisman with a great run.

Just look at the difference in investment in the Sunderland squad compared to ours – their 18 is worth basically twice ours. I think it's easier to make game-changing substitutions when you've got £24.4 million on the bench as opposed to £6.2 million.

It is no fallacy to suggest that money has made a huge difference. Because money is the root cause of having such a young team (on low wages, youngest squad in the league), and such an underinvested team. And the need to do that comes only down to Lerner. You can argue we needed more experience, and I agree, but we've also had to try and maintain a sensible squad size (which looking at the number of academy players in the team seems to be failing) – we needed bodies.

Lambert definitely became more cautious this year, and I want things to change next year, and we definitely need some more experience. But come on! Really look at what we've got available right now! You get quality on the most part by paying for it. That's why so many of us might hope that Okore would offer so much more than Baker for instance. I feel like Baker was responsible for about 20 goals last season.

I'm not forgiving Lambert everything, but I just think that money is rediculous. I am actually impressed he kept us up. And with Okore, Kozak and Benteke fit, the only three he spent a decent amount of money on, who knows! 

Sorry also for the long posts. It's funny how dropping soundbites such as "Lambert doesn't know tactics" can be so in depth and can cover all the different aspects going on in the club .

[olaftab]

Lambert's long-ball tactics, which really are indefensible

If only!

[paul_e]

^ not going to quote it.

comparing the matchday squads like that is completely misrepresenting the facts.

Our squad has another £70m+ of players that aren't on your list, you can't just ignore that and then cite a lack of spending.

Everyone is aware we've changed our spending policy (although nothing like as much as you're suggested, the average spend under lambert is £20m a year, the average spend under Lerner is, similarly, £20m a year, wages are where the funds have been cut).

Everyone is also aware of the injuries we had in the run in, which were unfortunate and did, I'm sure most people will agree, drop us from being 10-12th to finishing 15th.

However neither of those things dictate a need for the team to setup to play counter-attack at home, or for the trust in the basic skills of guys in their early 20s to decline.

I've said it before, we've scored a hell of a lot of technically brilliant goals in the last couple of years, that shows that, when the confidence is there the players have the skillset to do special things.  What we've not done is score bread and butter goals at anything like a good enough rate.  I mean the ones that we've conceded fuck loads of, where a simple ball over the fullback leads to a simple pass across the box and a tap in.  Those goals are tactical, they're the ones that point to a management team who've studied the opposition and worked on ways to make chances again that team.  Lambert can do it, we suckered Chelsea brilliantly and played them perfectly.  So why can't we do that more often?  I don't mean every week, but I would like to see some evidence of us targeting a weakness in most games.

[olaftab]

Morning Rolta. Back on the job I see.

[Clampy]

I'm not going to quote Rolta's book either but I've not got a problem with coming on here and just saying that I think tactics are Lambert's biggest flaw because I believe they are.

[Des Little]

IIRC the three teams that went down all had higher wage bills than ours didn't they?

[Dave]

Just look at the difference in investment in the Sunderland squad compared to ours – their 18 is worth basically twice ours. I think it's easier to make game-changing substitutions when you've got £24.4 million on the bench as opposed to £6.2 million.

How does our level of investment compare to Palace or Sheffield United?

[Clampy]

Just look at the difference in investment in the Sunderland squad compared to ours – their 18 is worth basically twice ours. I think it's easier to make game-changing substitutions when you've got £24.4 million on the bench as opposed to £6.2 million.

How does our level of investment compare to Palace or Sheffield United?

And Bradford or Stoke? Even the 2nd worse team in the league who conceded 85 goals managed to beat us twice.

[Monty]

Well, that would be a convincing argument, if you hadn't chosen us at our weakest moment of the season in terms of squad strength (and Sunderland at one of their strongest). There's £14m (Kozak and Benteke) unaccounted for which, even when playing, didn't stop us looking for the most part horrifically one dimensional. By the way, that's £14m which cannot really be expected to play together except in kitchen-sink chucking final ten minute desperation (or, 'doing a Lambert') - how is that prudent use of such limited finances? It's not. It's the action of a man who played Grant Holt and Steve Morison up front together at Norwich quite regularly, in order to chunt long balls at them. This goes back a long way. What Poyet did was quite extraordinary, and when you set him up against Lambert it's an embarrassing no-contest.

Lambert does, as you tenuously put it, have it in him to want to play better football, which as you say makes him better than McLeish. However, that also makes him MON, who too wanted to play better football, but whose limitations were such that he couldn't achieve it despite huge amounts of money being chucked at the team. He got results, but he should have done better and was held back by his stubborn adherence to a rigid 4-4-2, counter-attacking, overrating speed and strength over skill, having not the first clue about modern methods of pass-and-move training and generally boofing it all the pissing time. Lambert is more flexible in formation, and doesn't share MON's winger addiction (more's the pity), but being stuck in the 90s isn't all that much better than being stuck in the 70s, and he exhibits all he same traits otherwise.

Like MON, Lambert's team can look exciting if given space into which to play. Basically, on the break. He's a reactive manager, and the difference between a defensive performance and a counterattacking one is often no more than getting the breaks to escape from the back. However, give us a massed defence to break down and his teams have no plan, so we end up with the long balls into a congested space where it's almost certain not to work.

This is why we're horrendous at home - a number ten would help (even if he only appears to have heard of them yesterday), but what would help much more is actually looking like there's a plan when we have the ball. If you look at Rodgers' teams (interesting how you skipped over him, but we'll come to that), there's real purpose in possession. That's because Rodgers trains them maniacally in what to do when you get the ball, where to move to depending on where you are in relation to the player, one and two touch passing to keep the ball moving - you know, practicing. MON got them to jog around the pitch and play a five-a-side, if he was there at all.

Lambert's probably in between, but there's absolutely no evidence on the pitch that there's been significant work on the training ground. The players look lost, unguided by any helping hand, and that hand should be the managers. When they do break forward (usually Delph) all the running off the ball looks painfully improvised, which slows us down two-fold: firstly, the player has to decide where to move instead of just knowing by second-nature, as training would have helped him to acquire; and secondly, the player with the ball has to look for his teammates before making the pass, instead of trusting to the plan. This is the case all the time, and it's agony to watch.

Forget the money, because I've already said I think Lambert's actually good in the transfer market (though a good scout doesn't necessarily make a good manager) - is Ashley Westwood really a worse footballer, on the ball, than Lee twatting Cattermole? Because when Westwood arrived his off-the-ball anticipation and movement was fantastic, I thought we'd found a bargain Petrov, but two years of Lambert and he looks like he's trying to stodge his way through a bog with lead shoes without a map, whereas the lump Cattermole is moving into space like Busquets. Who's fault is this?

Please don't tell me that I need to 'really look' at what we've got right now, believe me, I've been really fucking looking for two years. And you know, you say your posts have to be long because you need the 'substance', but actually I'm afraid all I read is a lot of bluff, quite a lot of cliche, much over-simplifying and innumerable half-truths of a pretty mendacious nature. You say 'Baker costs us twenty goals a year' - then why did he keep playing him? Clark was always available but practically never given the chance, because despite being better on the ball he doesn't do Big Physical Things, and Lambert just loves those unreservedly.

You just say, for instance, of Martinez that 'well, he got Wigan relegated', neglecting of course to mention that he kept Wigan alive way beyond their life-expectancy and won them the FA Cup. You say these managers had more time at their clubs? Well, Poyet hadn't, and had to work with players who'd been exposed to Paulo di Canio for several months, and now look at them. Lambert's had two years and the football is getting worse - not 'more solid', as you keep saying, because we've either had the same or a worse season than last year, and we've just been worse to watch. Lambert needs time? The more time he's had, the worse it's got.

There's more than one way to play football, but none of them involve honestly thinking that long-balls, at home, in a winnable match, against a massed defence, are a real option. Lambert appears to think so, and it'll always, always, always hold him back no matter how many bargains he finds.

This essay shall be the last time I respond to you, unless you can come up with a new point better than 'you don't understand, simpleton, hark at my superior cod-economics!'. Over and out.