Paul Lambert

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

Yep, my point was mainly that I don't believe the importance of tactics is all it's cracked up to be. I think having Benteke back (and may he remain "back" for a long time) will persuade a lot of people that somehow the tactics have improved, when actually it's the quality of the players on the pitch that's improved.

Yeah because those that don't like how we play are simple misguided folk.

 

 

I don't know anyone who likes how we play.

 

But many of those who think that the solution to the problem is to sack Paul Lambert are simple misguided folk. Is that what you meant to say?

[terrytini]

Yep, my point was mainly that I don't believe the importance of tactics is all it's cracked up to be. I think having Benteke back (and may he remain "back" for a long time) will persuade a lot of people that somehow the tactics have improved, when actually it's the quality of the players on the pitch that's improved.

Yeah because those that don't like how we play are simple misguided folk.

 

I don't know anyone who likes how we play.

 

But many of those who think that the solution to the problem is to sack Paul Lambert are simple misguided folk. Is that what you meant to say?

I mean your post read as if those including myself who now think Lambert appears utterly devoid of anything resembling tactics-othet than the one-are misguided because the problem is simply the p!ayers, who apparently are useless because they didn't cost enough.

Despite the majority of those p!Ayers being at or near international level, and despite there being many clubs at many levels who can p!at more than one way.

No doubt benteke will improve our results, indeed Lambert can go sit in a deck chair because we could all pick benteke and hope for better results.

[darrenm]

 

 

 

Well, we'll find out in the next 22 games whether having tactics everyone likes is more important than having your best player fit and scoring goals.

Not sure those 2 things are mutually exclusive to each other.

For me it's more having a tactic that helps Benteke and the others create chances and score goals without falling appart defensively.

Im sure everyone will like that

 

Yep, my point was mainly that I don't believe the importance of tactics is all it's cracked up to be. I think having Benteke back (and may he remain "back" for a long time) will persuade a lot of people that somehow the tactics have improved, when actually it's the quality of the players on the pitch that's improved.

Yeah because those that don't like how we play are simple misguided folk.

 

Straw man alert.

 

It's pretty difficult to ask people to not let their thinking be limited without it being a little patronising. In no way is CPF's post patronising. Mine generally are.

[Dodgyknees]

That figure started out life as a Lambert-basher's fantasy, and has been quoted again and again. Nobody has produced anything whatsoever to back it up. I suspect it has no basis in fact whatsoever, or at least that six of those clubs have been relegated.

As the saying goes, if you tell a lie often enough people start to believe it.

Certainly something you should think about too.

You're saying I lie? I mean, I do from time to time but I hope you're not suggesting that I'm such a saddo that I tell lies to support Paul Lambert's position as manager. No, you see, my support of Lambert is based on the fact that I think he's not the reason for Aston Villa's problems.

But you still keep repeating the same again and again. 'It is injuries', it us just bizarre how injuries makes us very defensive, unavlble to use the ball and yet we can play football - like against Burnley, with injuries. But, the big one here us, we are not the only team with injuries and yet we have been shit for three years.

Of course, we need to blame the previous assistants, all chosen by Lambert, but it is not his fault.

[Brumstopdogs]

 

 

Transferleague.co.uk

 

2 newly promoted sides who we should finish above if we spent a lot more than some might say

 

 

Nowhere on that site is there a table of comparison that matches Lambert's tenure, so you've misread something somewhere.

 

Or some of us are capable of adding 3 numbers together for each team

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

 

So you've done that for the whole league for the last 3 years? Let's see the figures then.

Yes, the current premier league teams since Lambo came - figures provided earlier in this thread (in the last week) a number of times should you want to search for them!

Oh yeah because I'm going to look through a weeks posts to find them.

 

 

These were his (Brumstopdogs) figures. 

 

They were posted in a response to me questioning the claim, so I only had to look at my recent posts. 

 

over the last 5 windows apparently, I was surprised. 

 

1) Burnley: -£2.3m

2 ) Palace: £18.5m

3) Leicester: £14.2m

4) Newcastle: £19.4m

5) Southampton: £33.8m

6) Stoke: £23.5m

7) Sunderland: £37.6m

8) Swansea: £11.7m

9) Spurs: -£3.4m

10) West Brom: £15.4m

11) Everton: £18.2m

 

 

Thanks, appreciated.

 

So you got a source for these figures Brum?

 

Oh and its a bit of a stretch including 2 newly promoted sides

 

Net spend is a sketchy area, as shown by Spurs' position in that table.

[Brumstopdogs]

Net spend is a sketchy area, as shown by Spurs' position in that table.

 

 

They are the extreme example. However, fair play to them for developing Bale and getting him playing exciting, attacking football and utilising their asset.

 

Whether they spent the money wisely is another debate!

Edited December 5, 2014 by Brumstopdogs

[Stevo985]

 

Net spend is a sketchy area, as shown by Spurs' position in that table.

 

 

They are the extreme example. However, fair play to them for developing Bale and getting him playing exciting, attacking football and utilising their asset.

 

Absolutely.

 

But say we went and sold Benteke and Delph in January. We'd probably shoot right to the top of that list as I imagine that would wipe out most of what we've spent, or at least a large chunk of it.

 

Would that suddenly mean Lambert had done really well?

[Brumstopdogs]

Absolutely.

 

But say we went and sold Benteke and Delph in January. We'd probably shoot right to the top of that list as I imagine that would wipe out most of what we've spent, or at least a large chunk of it.

 

Would that suddenly mean Lambert had done really well?

 

I don't know what Delph's value is now but my guess would be not much considering how much of his contract is left.

 

As for Benteke let's say he is worth £20m - we'd still have a net spend above about 9 of the 11 teams by my reckoning.

[HeyAnty]

Where are we in the table for just money spent on players and not net?

[DCJonah]

Well in my opinion the football we play while not being great is world's away from the shite McLeish dished up and McLeish inherited a far better squad and spent more money on individual players.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion. But in what way was the palace game better?

[Stevo985]

 

Absolutely.

 

But say we went and sold Benteke and Delph in January. We'd probably shoot right to the top of that list as I imagine that would wipe out most of what we've spent, or at least a large chunk of it.

 

Would that suddenly mean Lambert had done really well?

 

I don't know what Delph's value is now but my guess would be not much considering how much of his contract is left.

 

As for Benteke let's say he is worth £20m - we'd still have a net spend above about 9 of the 11 teams by my reckoning.

 

Excellent avoiding of the question

 

Debating the players' value wasn't really what I was getting at. Let's say Man City went mental and offered us £50m for Benteke. Or someone saw a lot of potential in Grealish and paid £10m for him as well as us selling Benteke, It doesn't really matter.

 

The point is if we suddenly sold one or two players for a large amount of money, by your reasoning results could stay exactly the same, but suddenly Lambert has done really well because he's spent nothing.

 

 

I'm not saying net spend is redundant, of course it isn't. But it can be misleading if you don't put any context around figures.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Stevo985

[TrentVilla]

 

Well in my opinion the football we play while not being great is world's away from the shite McLeish dished up and McLeish inherited a far better squad and spent more money on individual players.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion. But in what way was the palace game better?

 

 

Better than say Spurs at home under McLeish? In every way possible, not lining up with 6 defenders and Heskey in midfield for a start.

 

But I'm going to bow out here I think.

[CrackpotForeigner]

But you still keep repeating the same again and again. 'It is injuries', it us just bizarre how injuries makes us very defensive, unavlble to use the ball and yet we can play football - like against Burnley, with injuries.

 

 

No, I keep saying that it's injuries AND inadequate spending on the squad and their salaries.

[P3te]

 

But you still keep repeating the same again and again. 'It is injuries', it us just bizarre how injuries makes us very defensive, unavlble to use the ball and yet we can play football - like against Burnley, with injuries.

 

 

No, I keep saying that it's injuries AND inadequate spending on the squad and their salaries.

 

do you genuinely not entertain the idea that perhaps the manager isn't using the players at his disposal in a way that gets the best out of them on the pitch?

[TRO]

Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's.

 

A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent, but modest money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion.

 

example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion.

 

ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks.

Edited December 5, 2014 by TRO

[sexbelowsound]

Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's.

 

A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion.

 

example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion.

 

ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks.

 

Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons!

[TRO]

I have seen too many players come in and go out worse, to think we are on the right lines.

 

for some strange reason, we seem to have developed players far better, when we had the old training ground.

 

This new gin palace has the kiss of death on player development.

 

ps .....maybe its a coincidence and that it is other factors

Edited December 5, 2014 by TRO

[HeyAnty]

Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's.

A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion.

example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion.

ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks.

Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons!

Is that what we have spent on players in the last 3 years? How does that stand up to the other prem teams who have been ever present these past 3 years. Brumstopdogs, can you do up a table for that? Id say we are bottom.

[TRO]

 

Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's.

 

A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion.

 

example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion.

 

ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks.

 

Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons!

 

 

He didn't at Porto ( laugh his head off) he proved himself....then joined the big league of high spenders....thats the promotion you get when you do it....you join the easier life.

 

 

Having more money to spend just raises the odds of getting a better player...no guarantee's.

A manager with a good backroom staff and a load of Nous with decent money...will challenge another manager with loads of money and not much idea.....Thats my opinion.

example as hypothetical as it is.... Mourinho would have managed a far better fist of spending 46 mill and with his know how & would have had us playing in a far more rounded & balanced fashion.

ps Too much emphasis on money spent IMO....There also seems that this conception that some new owner is going to splash the cash....keep lighting the candles in church folks.

Mourinho would laugh his head off if he was told he had only 46 million to spend over 3 seasons!

Is that what we have spent on players in the last 3 years? How does that stand up to the other prem teams who have been ever present these past 3 years. Brumstopdogs, can you do up a table for that? Id say we are bottom.

 

 

that is net spend....but some managers who have had more gross spend have generated it themselves.

Edited December 5, 2014 by TRO