Paul Lambert

[sexbelowsound]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

[darrenm]

Yep, I didn't read either :-)

Personally I think the whole bomb squad thing was purely driven by Lerner and Faulkner. I expect Lambert went along with it due to being able to get all his own players in, albeit cheap ones.

Kozak was absolutely the right decision as far as I'm concerned. He scored goals when benteke was injured, so Lambert's decision that his backup strikers were either too much of a risk or in the bomb squad was right.

However, I can't imagine (even with the mistakes Lerner has made!) a situation where Lerner said "Paul, you know what, that striker I paid £18m for a year and a half a go that has scored about 1 in every 2 games for us - stick him on the sidelines. We'll let him rot in the reserves and we'll make sure his value is reduced so we get less for him."

I would guess, again this is just my opinion, Lambert would have had the choice on how he reduced the wages and also the speed of how he did it as long as it was close to the wage expectations/guidelines the club had set.

I can't imagine anything but that scenario. Everyone concerned with the running of the club knew the wages were unsustainable and had to get the biggest earners off the books. The best way to do this was to make their position as footballers untenable. Embarrass them into finding alternative employment. Unfortunately it mostly backfired as none of them would take enough of a drop to go elsewhere. Multiple times throughout the last few years bomb squad players have been given a chance to give us value for money but up until Hutton this season no one has proved themselves worth it.

I'm sure Lambert went along with the whole thing because he knew that freeing up space in the budget automatically gives him more leeway with bringing his own choices in.

It's interesting that Hutton is quite happy to play for Lambert and has stated that he doesn't blame Lambert for anything that's happened, despite being an original bomb squad member, ostracised from the outset for earning too much, shipped around Europe with us desperately trying to flog him. If it was Lambert's decision wouldn't you think Hutton would hate him now?

[briny_ear]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

If that were the case he would be unlike any other manager in the premier league. Every club suffers injuries and suspensions and you need to have a squad that is robust enough to withstand these losses. Lambert did not optimise his resources because he put some of his most experienced players into the "bomb squad" (making them virtually unsaleable) and had to buy replacements on the cheap, resulting in a weak and inadequate squad.

 

He now seems to have put that right with the defence. We have three major injuries to what I guess are the first choice defenders yet it is still solid, helped in part by the fact that the nonsense of banishing Hutton from the first team squad has been ended.

 

Just two-thirds of the squad to work on now!

[Tomaszk]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

 

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

[darrenm]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

[sexbelowsound]

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

If that were the case he would be unlike any other manager in the premier league. Every club suffers injuries and suspensions and you need to have a squad that is robust enough to withstand these losses. Lambert did not optimise his resources because he put some of his most experienced players into the "bomb squad" (making them virtually unsaleable) and had to buy replacements on the cheap, resulting in a weak and inadequate squad.

 

He now seems to have put that right with the defence. We have three major injuries to what I guess are the first choice defenders yet it is still solid, helped in part by the fact that the nonsense of banishing Hutton from the first team squad has been ended.

 

Just two-thirds of the squad to work on now!

 

 

I'm just talking hypothetically. This isn't a pro Lambert/Anti-Lambert question. I'm just curious. I hope if people answer honestly that nobody refers back to the question in any pro/anti Lambert debate either.

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

 

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

 

 

I'd bloody hope so!!

[Brumstopdogs]

It's interesting that Hutton is quite happy to play for Lambert and has stated that he doesn't blame Lambert for anything that's happened, despite being an original bomb squad member, ostracised from the outset for earning too much, shipped around Europe with us desperately trying to flog him. If it was Lambert's decision wouldn't you think Hutton would hate him now?

 

Why should he blame him? Lambert didn't owe him anything.

 

As for wouldn't Hutton hate him. Maybe he just wanted/wants to get/be in the team.

 

I'm sure many people don't necessarily like their boss but they want to keep their job so telling the boss you hate them isn't always the smartest move!

[sne]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Im sure we would have performed better (as would any team who are fortunate with injuries).

Especially losing Benteke was a hard blow as our entire attack is based on him doing something out of nothing.

 

My biggest concern under Lambert is and has always been the midfield.

Even with everyone fit and in form we've never had players complementing each other well enough to build a solid midfield.

Yes we had that glorious run at the end of his first season but for the most part our midfield has either been overrun leaking goals or sitting back too deep and offering nothing going forward, at times both.

 

Imo no team can be consitently good without a working midfield and we've never had that under Lambert.

We all know he's had limited funds and for me it should have been spend differently. But we've already had 900 or so pages arguing about that so i think we all know were we stand on this.

 

So in conclusion: Yes i think we'd have been better without injuries, but i don't think we'd been that much better

Edited December 6, 2014 by sne

[sexbelowsound]

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Im sure we would have performed better (as would any team who are fortunate with injuries).

Especially losing Benteke was a hard blow as our entire attack is based on him doing something out of nothing.

 

My biggest concern under Lambert is and has always been the midfield.

Even with everyone fit and in form we've never had players complementing each other well enough to build a solid midfield.

Yes we had that glorious run at the end of his first season but for the most part our midfield has either been overrun leaking goals or sitting back too deep and offering nothing going forward, at times both.

 

Imo no team can be consitently good without a working midfield and we've never had that under Lambert.

We all know he's had limited funds and for me it should have been spend diffrently. But we've already had 900 or so pages arguing about that so i think we all know were we stand on this.

 

So in conclusion: Yes i think we'd have been better without injuries, but i don't think we'd been that much better

 

 

i'd agree with that. Midfield has always been a weak spot. Do you think it is improving? Or for instance. Would  a diamond of Sanchez, Westwood/Cleverely, Delph, Cole work if it could last the majority of the season?

[sne]

 

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Im sure we would have performed better (as would any team who are fortunate with injuries).

Especially losing Benteke was a hard blow as our entire attack is based on him doing something out of nothing.

 

My biggest concern under Lambert is and has always been the midfield.

Even with everyone fit and in form we've never had players complementing each other well enough to build a solid midfield.

Yes we had that glorious run at the end of his first season but for the most part our midfield has either been overrun leaking goals or sitting back too deep and offering nothing going forward, at times both.

 

Imo no team can be consitently good without a working midfield and we've never had that under Lambert.

We all know he's had limited funds and for me it should have been spend diffrently. But we've already had 900 or so pages arguing about that so i think we all know were we stand on this.

 

So in conclusion: Yes i think we'd have been better without injuries, but i don't think we'd been that much better

 

 

i'd agree with that. Midfield has always been a weak spot. Do you think it is improving? Or for instance. Would  a diamond of Sanchez, Westwood/Cleverely, Delph, Cole work if it could last the majority of the season?

 

Yes, I think Sanchez is someone we've badly missed in the previous seasons. He's not pulling up trees yet, but he is a clear role player who offers something we lacked.

Cleverly, Delph, Westwood are all ok, but for this tactic to work we need wide players who offer more than workrate and the odd burst of pace.

 

A midfield with Sanchez behind Cleverly/Delph or Westwood flanked by 2 more skilled/determined wingers than Gabby, Andi or N'Zogbia would be quite exciting. 

[Villanun]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

I would like to think that we'd be doing better purely by dint of having a proven goal scorer in the line up more often. But Lambert displays a tactical inflexibility which leads me to wonder if perhaps it would be more of the same "get the ball to Benteke and hope for the best". As for the lack of confidence, I don't really know what's causing it so it's difficult to say. No one element of a football club's performance is completely removed from the others, so confidence is likely affected by a confluence of different factors and changing any one them could have an effect. That said, I don't see anything from Lambert that leads me to believe that he personally is having any positive influence. He doesn't cut a dynamic figure on the touchline, and more often than not looks a little lost. Of course, that could just be the moments they choose to show on tv.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Villanun

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Im sure we would have performed better (as would any team who are fortunate with injuries).

Especially losing Benteke was a hard blow as our entire attack is based on him doing something out of nothing.

 

My biggest concern under Lambert is and has always been the midfield.

Even with everyone fit and in form we've never had players complementing each other well enough to build a solid midfield.

Yes we had that glorious run at the end of his first season but for the most part our midfield has either been overrun leaking goals or sitting back too deep and offering nothing going forward, at times both.

 

Imo no team can be consitently good without a working midfield and we've never had that under Lambert.

We all know he's had limited funds and for me it should have been spend diffrently. But we've already had 900 or so pages arguing about that so i think we all know were we stand on this.

 

So in conclusion: Yes i think we'd have been better without injuries, but i don't think we'd been that much better

 

 

i'd agree with that. Midfield has always been a weak spot. Do you think it is improving? Or for instance. Would  a diamond of Sanchez, Westwood/Cleverely, Delph, Cole work if it could last the majority of the season?

 

Yes, I think Sanchez is someone we've badly missed in the previous seasons. He's not pulling up trees yet, but he is a clear role player who offers something we lacked.

Cleverly, Delph, Westwood are all ok, but for this tactic to work we need wide players who offer more than workrate and the odd burst of pace.

 

A midfield with Sanchez behind Cleverly/Delph or Westwood flanked by 2 more skilled/determined wingers than Gabby, Andi or N'Zogbia would be quite exciting. 

 

 

Yep, I'd favour wingers also . I think one of the key issues is the use of Andi and Gabby on the wing. They just don't offer enough to both be in the team if Benteke is up front.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

Why?

I prefer the former of course, if we're not going to win anything then I'd rather play shit football and finish mid table than be relegated. That's a bit of a loaded question.

Why does the football shown have to be this bad for us to finish higher up the table? We've gotten the ball down and played a couple of times this season, early on in particular and we've gotten a couple of results from it and been unlucky against Spurs and Burnley. Must we revert to the turgid shite on display every other week? Is there really no other option?

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

Why?

I prefer the former of course, if we're not going to win anything then I'd rather play shit football and finish mid table than be relegated. That's a bit of a loaded question.

Why does the football shown have to be this bad for us to finish higher up the table? We've gotten the ball down and played a couple of times this season, early on in particular and we've gotten a couple of results from it and been unlucky against Spurs and Burnley. Must we revert to the turgid shite on display every other week? Is there really no other option?

 

 

Do you think that maybe the players revert to it due to lack of confidence? Or is Lambert setting them up that way?

[DCJonah]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

Why?

I prefer the former of course, if we're not going to win anything then I'd rather play shit football and finish mid table than be relegated. That's a bit of a loaded question.

Why does the football shown have to be this bad for us to finish higher up the table? We've gotten the ball down and played a couple of times this season, early on in particular and we've gotten a couple of results from it and been unlucky against Spurs and Burnley. Must we revert to the turgid shite on display every other week? Is there really no other option?

Couldn't agree more. It's a weak excuse.

What's our best spell under Lambert? I'd say the final run at the end of his first season. We played nice stuff, looked good and scored quite a few.

So why 2 years later and more money spent is it unrealistic to think we should be able to play like that again?

[darrenm]

 

 

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

Why?

I prefer the former of course, if we're not going to win anything then I'd rather play shit football and finish mid table than be relegated. That's a bit of a loaded question.

Why does the football shown have to be this bad for us to finish higher up the table? We've gotten the ball down and played a couple of times this season, early on in particular and we've gotten a couple of results from it and been unlucky against Spurs and Burnley. Must we revert to the turgid shite on display every other week? Is there really no other option?

 

It's not an option for the purposes of this discussion because it was meant to be a loaded question i.e. would you rather this or this. Once we've established that it's universally preferable to stay up playing 'effective' football rather than be relegated keeping it on the ground we can at least say which side of the fence we're on if we have no other options. The other options is the debatable bit, which I was trying to stay away from because it's all a bit ambiguous.

 

Anyway, what's 'this bad'? I don't think we play especially bad football. We keep it on the ground as much as we hoof it. We're not Barcelona but we're not 1990 Wimbledon either. When we looked ragged on the pitch and hoofing it away without keeping possession it's because we're not very good at defending a lead. This is just a combination of inexperience and inability, it's not some instruction to give it back to the opposition at every chance. The players go a bit too safe and stop playing 'good' football because it's the safer option. Nobody wants to be at fault for the latest loss.

 

I'd much prefer us to take more risks and score some great goals but I also know that it would get us relegated so it's a good job I'm not the manager. Percentage, safe football keeps you up when you're brassic, recklessness doesn't.

 

In fact, I'd argue that our type of football is the most effective available. It's so important these days to get behind a team because when defending in numbers it's nigh on impossible to break through. You have to find some way of drawing them out. If you can get the first goal, they will inevitably attack, leaving space behind which you can exploit. Our main problem recently has been that our finishing has been too poor to exploit the space.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think there's such thing as bad or good football. There's just football. We just don't take a lot of risks which is absolutely the best policy when consolidating and attempting to stabilise the club.

[Tomaszk]

 

 

 

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

Why?

I prefer the former of course, if we're not going to win anything then I'd rather play shit football and finish mid table than be relegated. That's a bit of a loaded question.

Why does the football shown have to be this bad for us to finish higher up the table? We've gotten the ball down and played a couple of times this season, early on in particular and we've gotten a couple of results from it and been unlucky against Spurs and Burnley. Must we revert to the turgid shite on display every other week? Is there really no other option?

 

It's not an option for the purposes of this discussion because it was meant to be a loaded question i.e. would you rather this or this. Once we've established that it's universally preferable to stay up playing 'effective' football rather than be relegated keeping it on the ground we can at least say which side of the fence we're on if we have no other options. The other options is the debatable bit, which I was trying to stay away from because it's all a bit ambiguous.

 

In fact, I'd argue that our type of football is the most effective available. It's so important these days to get behind a team because when defending in numbers it's nigh on impossible to break through. You have to find some way of drawing them out. If you can get the first goal, they will inevitably attack, leaving space behind which you can exploit. Our main problem recently has been that our finishing has been too poor to exploit the space.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think there's such thing as bad or good football. There's just football. We just don't take a lot of risks which is absolutely the best policy when consolidating and attempting to stabilise the club.

 

I agree with you here.

 

It's no ones place to tell others what "good football" constitutes, but I can safely say that I don't enjoy watching Aston Villa under Paul Lambert.

 

If he wants to play direct football, that's fine, but play it properly! Get some men in support of the hoofs. Have some set-plays that are effective. Do something that makes it look like we might win some games!

 

He has no plan. He doesn't know how he wants his own teams to play. I'm using the last few, inconsistent years as the basis for my opinion here.

 

He is relieving the pressure on Lerner he's so bad. Lerner is the one who deserves the brunt of fan frustration but we're so putrid on the pitch fans can't help but aim blame Lambert's direction.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

Why?

I prefer the former of course, if we're not going to win anything then I'd rather play shit football and finish mid table than be relegated. That's a bit of a loaded question.

Why does the football shown have to be this bad for us to finish higher up the table? We've gotten the ball down and played a couple of times this season, early on in particular and we've gotten a couple of results from it and been unlucky against Spurs and Burnley. Must we revert to the turgid shite on display every other week? Is there really no other option?

Do you think that maybe the players revert to it due to lack of confidence? Or is Lambert setting them up that way?

Mixture of both I think. I think both fall under the remit of "management". I run my own business, when moral and confidence is low among my staff who do you think they look to? I'm pretty good at my job, so it's rarely an issue

Also, I've been banging the drum I know but the way he sets up the midfield/attack is dreadful. It worked for the main part towards the end of season one, but he's not find that balance since.

Tomaszk answered for me above too.

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of interest. How do people think we would be getting on had we been lucky enough to not have suffered major injuries? So if Lambert had at his disposal all the players he wanted and had purchased. Would the tactics be different? Would we be more confident? Would we be performing better in the league?

Good shout!

Would the 'tactics' have progressed beyond kicking it as far as you can and getting after it?

That's got us to 12th so far.

Or would you prefer us passing it around and being in 19th place?

No, both isn't an option.

Why?

I prefer the former of course, if we're not going to win anything then I'd rather play shit football and finish mid table than be relegated. That's a bit of a loaded question.

Why does the football shown have to be this bad for us to finish higher up the table? We've gotten the ball down and played a couple of times this season, early on in particular and we've gotten a couple of results from it and been unlucky against Spurs and Burnley. Must we revert to the turgid shite on display every other week? Is there really no other option?

Do you think that maybe the players revert to it due to lack of confidence? Or is Lambert setting them up that way?

Mixture of both I think. I think both fall under the remit of "management". I run my own business, when moral and confidence is low among my staff who do you think they look to? I'm pretty good at my job, so it's rarely an issue

Also, I've been banging the drum I know but the way he sets up the midfield/attack is dreadful. It worked for the main part towards the end of season one, but he's not find that balance since.

Tomaszk answered for me above too.

 

 

Yeah I agree completely with the midfield. Definitely our weakest point. The players we have are far too similar. 

[darrenm]

the way he sets up the midfield/attack is dreadful. It worked for the main part towards the end of season one, but he's not find that balance since.

 

 

But how do you know? Please take this in the most non-confrontational way, but how do you know he sets up the midfield/attack wrong? Is the level of your knowledge and understanding to premier league standards? It may well be for all I know. I certainly can't tell if he sets the team up right or not, I'm don't have a Sunday league level of understanding about tactical intricacies, let alone Premier League. This isn't to say you can't question it but I'm genuinely intrigued how you know he's doing it wrong?