Paul Lambert

[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!

He didn't at Porto

No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager.

because he can...why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way.

I seem to remember him bringing in a number of players at Porto on modest sums....I just think this money thing in isolation is a bit of a kop out.

Don't get me wrong money is a big part of it....but there are many other important factors to get right too.

Yeah his net spend at Porto was around break even point. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the lack of funds on its own is an excuse though are they? Unless i've missed it which I may have.

For what its worth I agree. Not having money to spend shouldn't be a kop out on its own. I do however think that in an ultra competitive league, barely spending, and still managing to stay in the league is quite impressive. Albeit done by playing bang average football.

You think what he's done at villa is impressive? You're impressed by breaking club records? Impressed by losing 50% of the time?

I can understand the conditions he's had to work under but to say its impressive is ridiculous IMO.

 

 

Managing to stay in the league by barely spending in comparison to others is, yes. Did I say anything about the records or did you just go to your standard list of stats that you throw into every post for the fun of it?

[sexbelowsound]

 

We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records

And funnily enough people don't bring this up when they say we can't compete because of money spent. Strange that.

 

 

Are you actually suggesting now that £7 million is something to be impressed by in terms of money spent on a player??

[HeyAnty]

We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records

And funnily enough people don't bring this up when they say we can't compete because of money spent. Strange that.

Im not sure i understand your response? You mean a record fee of 7 million on one player over a 3 year period is competing?

[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?

Do you genuinely think it's that simple?

 

 

Do I think it's the only issue? No. But I'd like to see the manager actually getting the best out of the players before I start throwing the blame around elsewhere. Why would you start anywhere other than the players on the pitch and the man who sends them out to play?

 

No amount of changes above and behind the manager will make a difference if he's not capable of using his playing staff properly, and I don't think he is. In fact I think he's pretty dreadful at that particular task. No amount of money or a lack of injuries or a new owner will fix that

[foreveryoung]

All the arguing about money means F*** all if you can't even beat a league one side, over 2 legs. I mean it wasn't the usual League one side lucky win, it was over 2 legs and Lambert did not have a clue. This has a huge bearing on his tenure here. Makes me think if he did spend big money could he really be up there and compete with the top six, I mean they use tactics and full on attacking play an stuff??

[DCJonah]

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

No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager.

because he can...why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way.

I seem to remember him bringing in a number of players at Porto on modest sums....I just think this money thing in isolation is a bit of a kop out.

Don't get me wrong money is a big part of it....but there are many other important factors to get right too.

Yeah his net spend at Porto was around break even point. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the lack of funds on its own is an excuse though are they? Unless i've missed it which I may have.

For what its worth I agree. Not having money to spend shouldn't be a kop out on its own. I do however think that in an ultra competitive league, barely spending, and still managing to stay in the league is quite impressive. Albeit done by playing bang average football.

You think what he's done at villa is impressive? You're impressed by breaking club records? Impressed by losing 50% of the time?

I can understand the conditions he's had to work under but to say its impressive is ridiculous IMO.

Managing to stay in the league by barely spending in comparison to others is, yes. Did I say anything about the records or did you just go to your standard list of stats that you throw into every post for the fun of it?

So you're impressed? Staying in the league comes with what's happened. If you're impressed by these last few years I can see why you jump on people who don't rate lambert. Although I have no idea why you're actually impressed.

[DCJonah]

We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records

And funnily enough people don't bring this up when they say we can't compete because of money spent. Strange that.

Im not sure i understand your response? You mean a record fee of 7 million on one player over a 3 year period is competing?

My point is you can't turn round and say 'wow great work Lambert finding a world class striker for £7 million' and also turn round and say 'well we can't compete because we don't spend as much as other teams.'

[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!

He didn't at Porto

No, he just inherited the best squad in the league. I'm not disagreeing with his man management and tactical nous but he really is a bit of a cheque book manager.

because he can...why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way.

I seem to remember him bringing in a number of players at Porto on modest sums....I just think this money thing in isolation is a bit of a kop out.

Don't get me wrong money is a big part of it....but there are many other important factors to get right too.

Yeah his net spend at Porto was around break even point. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the lack of funds on its own is an excuse though are they? Unless i've missed it which I may have.

For what its worth I agree. Not having money to spend shouldn't be a kop out on its own. I do however think that in an ultra competitive league, barely spending, and still managing to stay in the league is quite impressive. Albeit done by playing bang average football.

You think what he's done at villa is impressive? You're impressed by breaking club records? Impressed by losing 50% of the time?

I can understand the conditions he's had to work under but to say its impressive is ridiculous IMO.

Managing to stay in the league by barely spending in comparison to others is, yes. Did I say anything about the records or did you just go to your standard list of stats that you throw into every post for the fun of it?

So you're impressed? Staying in the league comes with what's happened. If you're impressed by these last few years I can see why you jump on people who don't rate lambert. Although I have no idea why you're actually impressed.

 

 

[DCJonah]

Nice picture and good work of deflecting. You used the phrase impressed. That was your choice.

[HeyAnty]

We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records

And funnily enough people don't bring this up when they say we can't compete because of money spent. Strange that.

Im not sure i understand your response? You mean a record fee of 7 million on one player over a 3 year period is competing?

My point is you can't turn round and say 'wow great work Lambert finding a world class striker for £7 million' and also turn round and say 'well we can't compete because we don't spend as much as other teams.'

Why not? 7 million isnt competing, thats my point. Especially when its your record purchase over a 3 year period.

[sexbelowsound]

Nice picture and good work of deflecting. You used the phrase impressed. That was your choice.

 

I'm not deflecting. I already explained it to you. You chose not to understand it so why should I repeat myself? Good night X

[DCJonah]

In terms of money spent, you can't just look at that and say we should struggle because of it.

Spurs paid £30 million for soldado and we paid £7 million for benteke. You'd be stupid to say they have a better player because they spent more.

Lambert signed guzan for free, does that mean he's worse than other keepers managers paid for?

Lambert didn't spend a penny on delph and gabby, are they worse than players other clubs paid for?

Like with most facts, using money spent in isolation to claim you're impressed or to defend lambert is pretty weak. So many things that need to be taken into account.

We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records

And funnily enough people don't bring this up when they say we can't compete because of money spent. Strange that.

Im not sure i understand your response? You mean a record fee of 7 million on one player over a 3 year period is competing?

My point is you can't turn round and say 'wow great work Lambert finding a world class striker for £7 million' and also turn round and say 'well we can't compete because we don't spend as much as other teams.'

Why not? 7 million isnt competing, thats my point. Especially when its your record purchase over a 3 year period.

So benteke is no good because we paid so little for him?

[DCJonah]

Nice picture and good work of deflecting. You used the phrase impressed. That was your choice.

I'm not deflecting. I already explained it to you. You chose not to understand it so why should I repeat myself? Good night X

Your explanation was that you're impressed he managed to keep us in the league. Surely that comes with everything that's happened. After all its our performances and results that have kept us in there. Edited December 5, 2014 by DCJonah

[HeyAnty]

In terms of money spent, you can't just look at that and say we should struggle because of it.

Spurs paid £30 million for soldado and we paid £7 million for benteke. You'd be stupid to say they have a better player because they spent more.

Lambert signed guzan for free, does that mean he's worse than other keepers managers paid for?

Lambert didn't spend a penny on delph and gabby, are they worse than players other clubs paid for?

Like with most facts, using money spent in isolation to claim you're impressed or to defend lambert is pretty weak. So many things that need to be taken into account.

We all seen what he did when he spent his record spend of 7million. A wooping 7 mill. People dont mention that record when they are going on about his records

And funnily enough people don't bring this up when they say we can't compete because of money spent. Strange that.

Im not sure i understand your response? You mean a record fee of 7 million on one player over a 3 year period is competing?

My point is you can't turn round and say 'wow great work Lambert finding a world class striker for £7 million' and also turn round and say 'well we can't compete because we don't spend as much as other teams.'

Why not? 7 million isnt competing, thats my point. Especially when its your record purchase over a 3 year period.

So benteke is no good because we paid so little for him?

Yes i agree there are other things but that is the point im arguing at the moment. And to be honest, unfortunately with the way football has went since sky came to the table, money is the major factor.

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

Nice picture and good work of deflecting. You used the phrase impressed. That was your choice.

I'm not deflecting. I already explained it to you. You chose not to understand it so why should I repeat myself? Good night X

Your explanation was that you're impressed he managed to keep us in the league. Surely that comes with everything that's happened. After all its our performances and results that have kept us in there.

 

 

Ok, I'm biting. Do you think that I said that not having a lot of money to spend is a reason to not blame Lambert for anything? If so then you clearly never read my posts properly. 

[DCJonah]

I won't argue with that but at the same time its easy to dismiss poor performances with lack of spending.

We could have a spine of guzan, senderos, delph, benteke. For that Lambert spent £7 million. That doesn't make it something that can't compete because he didn't spend much on it.

[DCJonah]

Nice picture and good work of deflecting. You used the phrase impressed. That was your choice.

I'm not deflecting. I already explained it to you. You chose not to understand it so why should I repeat myself? Good night X

Your explanation was that you're impressed he managed to keep us in the league. Surely that comes with everything that's happened. After all its our performances and results that have kept us in there.

Ok, I'm biting. Do you think that I said that not having a lot of money to spend is a reason to not blame Lambert for anything? If so then you clearly never read my posts properly.

You said you were impressed he kept us in the league. If you're impressed by that final achievement then surely you're impressed by what caused that, which would be performances and results.

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

 

Nice picture and good work of deflecting. You used the phrase impressed. That was your choice.

I'm not deflecting. I already explained it to you. You chose not to understand it so why should I repeat myself? Good night X

Your explanation was that you're impressed he managed to keep us in the league. Surely that comes with everything that's happened. After all its our performances and results that have kept us in there.

Ok, I'm biting. Do you think that I said that not having a lot of money to spend is a reason to not blame Lambert for anything? If so then you clearly never read my posts properly.

You said you were impressed he kept us in the league. If you're impressed by that final achievement then surely you're impressed by what caused that, which would be performances and results.

 

 

So for me to be impressed that a manager has managed to keep us in the league in spite of the challenges he faces means I must find the results and performances impressive as well? Really? So I can either be impressed by everything or disappointed by everything, I'm not allowed to appreciate the challenges the man has faced but also be unimpressed by his tactics or style of football?

[DCJonah]

So you're unimpressed with results but impressed with what that led to?

That doesn't make much sense.

[jackbauer24]

This post has been written with full research as best I can find it from transferleague.co.uk so whilst some of the info might be slightly wrong you’d imagine it’s the fairest place to get it all as it’ll be wrong for all teams! It is a long post but the findings are significant.

 

There has been a lot of talk about transfer spending and net spend and a lot of other information, all with points for and against how to interpret the findings. I suggest we look at things in what seems the fairest way and am going to publish this even if it doesn’t prove my belief that Lambert has, at worst, done an OK job.

 

A few basic rules; firstly there is no point with me comparing net spends for all teams – if Chelsea had a £500m pound quality squad but have a few seasons not spending, that does not mean we can compete with them if we outspend them for two seasons of spending £5m. So I will only be comparing, season on season, similar clubs to ours. Secondly, loans and frees are very difficult to judge so can’t really be included although I acknowledge they have an impact.

 

So let’s start with when Lambert took over. Aston Villa had just finished 16^th, sacked McLeish and had a number of high paid players in the squad which he was informed to deal with. Now we can say he was told to ‘bomb’ them or we can say he ‘decided’ to bomb them but that’s another argument.

 

The teams that had finished around us (but survived in the Premiership) were as follows and their summer spend that year in NET (so to show whether improving squad quality) is in brackets:

17^thQPR (spent £36m)
16^th Aston Villa (spent £23.7m - largely Young and Downing money)
15^thWigan (made £1.9m)
14^th Stoke (spent £21m)
13^th Sunderland (spent £11.6m)
12^th Norwich (spent £9m)
11^th Swansea (made £6.5m)

Also coming up were Reading (spent £7m), Southampton (spent £32m) and West Ham (spent £18m)

As we all know Wigan, Reading and QPR went down. We now finished 15th ahead of Sunderland (we spent more than them so jumped ahead) whilst Stoke, Norwich and Swansea also improved by one position (obviously Norwich and Swansea did very well considering their spends). Newcastle plummeted and Southampton finished a place above us.

So I think you could argue the two teams directly sandwiching us in QPR and Wigan tried differing strategies on transfers but both got relegated and we survived. The other teams matched the one position improvement we made.

On to 2013/14. We have now been trying to improve again and we have to evaluate our new competition down near the foot of the table:

17^th Sunderland (spent £7m)
16^th Newcastle (made £19m – Cabaye)
15^th Aston Villa (spent £16m)
14^th Southampton (spent another £35m)
13^th Stoke (spent £2m)
12^thFulham (spent £20m)
11^thNorwich (spent £22m)

We were also joined by Cardiff (spent £32m), Hull (spent £24m) and Crystal Palace (spent £26m)

So despite trying to improve we actually spent much the same, often less, than most other teams. Yet Cardiff, Fulham and Norwich got relegated who spent more than us and, in Fulham and Norwich’s case, from a better position than us the previous season. We remained 15^th and with the spending you see above, I think treading water is pretty much accurate and not a failure. Stoke were the clear ‘winners’.

So now we’ve just finished a season surrounded by:

17^th West Brom (spent £13m this summer to improve)
16^th Hull (spent £22m this summer)
15^th Aston Villa (spent £5.5m this summer)
14^th Sunderland (spent £11m this summer)
13^th West Ham (spent £23m this summer)
12^th Swansea (made £2m this summer after spending £20m the season before)
11^th Crystal Palace (spent £9m this summer)

We’ve also been joined by Leicester (spent £11m), Burnley (Spent £6.5m) and QPR (spent £19m)

So we have been outspent by everyone other than Swansea who finished above us.

Now, having seen the stats, who can really argue that Lambert has had a ‘real’ chance to improve us? At best he’s had the same funds as managers around us and has either tread water whilst they have been relegated or pretty much matched their progress in a positional basis (improving a position). There are some stand out teams like Southampton but then you realise they spent nearly £70m before this seasons sales/ new purchases. Stoke and Newcastle moved away from trouble - anyone want Pardew(?!) and Villa are currently above Stoke this season so far. This season we have clearly spent less than practically everyone so why are we expecting progress?

I don’t see how this can be interpreted as a ‘twisting’ of the figures – they are there for you all to read. Who of the teams around us when Lambert took over have done significantly better than us with the same funds?

 

This also does not include wages which I think even the most ardent Lambert haters have to agree plays a role in transfers. I think we can all acknowledge that the likes of Newcastle, QPR, West Ham and even West Brom pay more than we do. Probably most of the other teams bar the likes of Burnley, Leicester and Crystal Palace do too.

 

Lambert is NOT the problem. I hate the football, I hate where we are but it is the lack of funds that is strangling the life out of Aston Villa not Lambert’s team which has been assembled on what he can get, what he can gamble on and then has to play to their ability rather than how he might prefer to play.

Unfortunately I suspect despite this overwhelming evidence to the contrary, most Lambert haters will still want him out as they blame him just because it’s easy. At least he can be shouted at every week rather than the absent Lerner.

For one final defence (and this is the last time I write in this thread as it irritates me a little to see people twisting stuff and not looking beyond an obvious scape goat) of Lambert THIS season.

If you forget everything that has gone on before, this season Aston Villa are doing better than they did last season against the same opposition. Furthermore, other than last season’s top 6, we have only lost to QPR this season – but we did beat one top 6 team in Liverpool. The style and manner of performances might not be great but you take results before performance and then see what you can do. I’d rather survive playing crap for a few years than be exciting losers in the Championship.

Edited December 6, 2014 by jackbauer24