P3te Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 To dismiss finances entirely is ridiculous To dismiss them entirely, yes. BUT a good manager with limited finances will still set a team up right. A poor manager with unlimited finances will still set a team up poorly I'm not disputing that. It was a response to someone saying they were sick of hearing about them which to me meant that he didn't think they were relevant, which they are. They are, but they're not hugely relevant. Lambert has probably gotten more out of his limited funds than most other managers would get with twice as much, in terms of player signing quality. However, Lambert has also gotten less out of those players than most other managers would, in terms of on the pitch performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Premier League>>>>>>Championship. Championship is a very tough league. Didn't say it wasn't. I'm saying that teams can compete in the Championship without having to spend much money which isn't really so in the Premier League. People might not like that the budget restrictions are used as a reason why the club is struggling but to pretend that it isn't partially to blame is ludicrous. Noone is saying it's not partially to blame, i think we all want to see the back of Lerner and see a big cash injection, but Lambert should be doing alot better after 3 years in the job. Pulis set his team up well at Everton the other night, we got absolutely battered there. Ah, So if they are partially to blame then why are you sick of hearing about them? It's not like it isn't a valid thing to discuss. If people want to discuss our manager from all angles then it needs to be brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) To dismiss finances entirely is ridiculous To dismiss them entirely, yes. BUT a good manager with limited finances will still set a team up right. A poor manager with unlimited finances will still set a team up poorly I'm not disputing that. It was a response to someone saying they were sick of hearing about them which to me meant that he didn't think they were relevant, which they are. They are, but they're not hugely relevant. Lambert has probably gotten more out of his limited funds than most other managers would get with twice as much, in terms of player signing quality. However, Lambert has also gotten less out of those players than most other managers would, in terms of on the pitch performance They are massively relevant. We're probably spending (someone can check) in and around the 3rd or 4th lowest amounts in the Premier League per season and yet there's an expectation that we should be around, say, 10th in the league. If you want to improve quality, you need to spend well. There's undoubtedly a mix of Lambert finding decent players within his working budget coupled with Lambert not being able to get the best out of his squad, but to say the funding is "not hugely relevant" is just plain wrong. If you have a squad in decline, you need to invest in it - irrespective of manager. It's that **** simple. Edited January 22, 2015 by bobzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcowans21 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Premier League>>>>>>Championship. Championship is a very tough league. Didn't say it wasn't. I'm saying that teams can compete in the Championship without having to spend much money which isn't really so in the Premier League. People might not like that the budget restrictions are used as a reason why the club is struggling but to pretend that it isn't partially to blame is ludicrous. Noone is saying it's not partially to blame, i think we all want to see the back of Lerner and see a big cash injection, but Lambert should be doing alot better after 3 years in the job. Pulis set his team up well at Everton the other night, we got absolutely battered there. Ah, So if they are partially to blame then why are you sick of hearing about them? It's not like it isn't a valid thing to discuss. If people want to discuss our manager from all angles then it needs to be brought up. Just seems like its an easy excuse when we get beat or draw with teams we should be beating. Was the 'budget' to blame for a gutless defeat against Leicester? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 By again, my point is that Lambert has done brilliantly to get players in that are worth far more than he paid. What we spent isn't an accurate reflection of what we've bought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 By again, my point is that Lambert has done brilliantly to get players in that are worth far more than he paid. What we spent isn't an accurate reflection of what we've bought "Worth far more" to who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 To dismiss finances entirely is ridiculous To dismiss them entirely, yes. BUT a good manager with limited finances will still set a team up right. A poor manager with unlimited finances will still set a team up poorly I'm not disputing that. It was a response to someone saying they were sick of hearing about them which to me meant that he didn't think they were relevant, which they are. They are, but they're not hugely relevant. Lambert has probably gotten more out of his limited funds than most other managers would get with twice as much, in terms of player signing quality. However, Lambert has also gotten less out of those players than most other managers would, in terms of on the pitch performance Sorry Pete, I actually thought your initial response was to me as I wrote something almost identical to Bobzy. I agree with what you said though except for them not being hugely relevant. I think they hold equal weight to the majority of the issues surrounding the manager and the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 By again, my point is that Lambert has done brilliantly to get players in that are worth far more than he paid. What we spent isn't an accurate reflection of what we've bought "Worth far more" to who? By again, my point is that Lambert has done brilliantly to get players in that are worth far more than he paid. What we spent isn't an accurate reflection of what we've bought "Worth far more" to who? A decent manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 By again, my point is that Lambert has done brilliantly to get players in that are worth far more than he paid. What we spent isn't an accurate reflection of what we've bought "Worth far more" to who? A decent manager A decent manager values players more highly than Lambert? Ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Roberto Martinez is a good manager (imo) and set Wigan up right. They still had limited finances and they still got relegated. People forget that Martinez was the manager who had them down the bottom most seasons, as well as being the manager that got them out of the relegation scrap. They tended to focus on the latter, ignoring the former. Martinez is an example of a manager who has a fair amount of things right, but struggles with a key element. Lambert's struggle is setting up a midfield, Martinez's is a defence Kindof ironic, then, that if Martinez were still at Wigan he'd be odds on to replace Lambert if Lambert were sacked. As a club we're not going to identify and attract a much better alternative. (There's a reason why this point has been raised before: It means everything, if we decide to get rid of Lambert). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcowans21 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 To dismiss finances entirely is ridiculous To dismiss them entirely, yes. BUT a good manager with limited finances will still set a team up right. A poor manager with unlimited finances will still set a team up poorly I'm not disputing that. It was a response to someone saying they were sick of hearing about them which to me meant that he didn't think they were relevant, which they are. They are, but they're not hugely relevant. Lambert has probably gotten more out of his limited funds than most other managers would get with twice as much, in terms of player signing quality. However, Lambert has also gotten less out of those players than most other managers would, in terms of on the pitch performance They are massively relevant. We're probably spending (someone can check) in and around the 3rd or 4th lowest amounts in the Premier League per season and yet there's an expectation that we should be around, say, 10th in the league. If you want to improve quality, you need to spend well. There's undoubtedly a mix of Lambert finding decent players within his working budget coupled with Lambert not being able to get the best out of his squad, but to say the funding is "not hugely relevant" is just plain wrong. If you have a squad in decline, you need to invest in it - irrespective of manager. It's that **** simple. See, this is the myth alot of people like to use. I don't see anyone saying we should be 10th or higher in the league, all they ask for is a bit of spirit, fight and maybe attack a game for a change. Look at the difference in the crowd when Gil came on and we really started to put pressure on Liverpool. I was alot more accepting of that defeat because of that 2nd half performance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 By again, my point is that Lambert has done brilliantly to get players in that are worth far more than he paid. What we spent isn't an accurate reflection of what we've bought "Worth far more" to who? A decent manager A decent manager values players more highly than Lambert? Ok... No, a decent manager would get more out of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Just seems like its an easy excuse when we get beat or draw with teams we should be beating. Was the 'budget' to blame for a gutless defeat against Leicester? But nobody is saying that either. Literally nobody has said that the budget is the sole reason for poor performances. It is one of many reasons why this club is on its arse and as such is perfectly valid point to be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Roberto Martinez is a good manager (imo) and set Wigan up right. They still had limited finances and they still got relegated. People forget that Martinez was the manager who had them down the bottom most seasons, as well as being the manager that got them out of the relegation scrap. They tended to focus on the latter, ignoring the former. Martinez is an example of a manager who has a fair amount of things right, but struggles with a key element. Lambert's struggle is setting up a midfield, Martinez's is a defence Kindof ironic, then, that if Martinez were still at Wigan he'd be odds on to replace Lambert if Lambert were sacked. As a club we're not going to identify and attract a much better alternative. (There's a reason why this point has been raised before: It means everything, if we decide to get rid of Lambert). Given that the end result would most likely be the same in terms of rough position, I'd have Martinez over Lambert any day because at least we'd be entertained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Look, the budget thing is a factor, but it's mitigated by the fact that the guy has been genuinely great in the transfer market. The one thing that's used to protect him from criticism is the one thing that actually hasn't caused him all that many problems. If Lambert had 5 times as much money to spend I still don't think he'd have us playing properly. Player acquisition is not the problem, player use is Of course the budget has caused him problems. You don't think he'd get rid of N'Zogbia for a better alternative if he could afford to?? It wouldn't matter - the guy can't set a team up. He could have Draxler and he'd still fluff his lines because of his tactics Be honest, If Lambert replaced N'Zogbia with someone who creates and scores goals we'd be winning games and everyone would quickly forget that they think Lambert's tactics are dodgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Look, the budget thing is a factor, but it's mitigated by the fact that the guy has been genuinely great in the transfer market. The one thing that's used to protect him from criticism is the one thing that actually hasn't caused him all that many problems. If Lambert had 5 times as much money to spend I still don't think he'd have us playing properly. Player acquisition is not the problem, player use is Of course the budget has caused him problems. You don't think he'd get rid of N'Zogbia for a better alternative if he could afford to?? It wouldn't matter - the guy can't set a team up. He could have Draxler and he'd still fluff his lines because of his tactics Be honest, If Lambert replaced N'Zogbia with someone who creates and scores goals we'd be winning games and everyone would quickly forget that they think Lambert's tactics are dodgy. For Lambert to replace NZogbia with someone who could create and score goals he'd have to change the way the team is set up - and if he did that, I'd have absolutely no issue with it Edited January 22, 2015 by P3te 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Look, the budget thing is a factor, but it's mitigated by the fact that the guy has been genuinely great in the transfer market. The one thing that's used to protect him from criticism is the one thing that actually hasn't caused him all that many problems. If Lambert had 5 times as much money to spend I still don't think he'd have us playing properly. Player acquisition is not the problem, player use is Of course the budget has caused him problems. You don't think he'd get rid of N'Zogbia for a better alternative if he could afford to?? It wouldn't matter - the guy can't set a team up. He could have Draxler and he'd still fluff his lines because of his tactics Be honest, If Lambert replaced N'Zogbia with someone who creates and scores goals we'd be winning games and everyone would quickly forget that they think Lambert's tactics are dodgy. For Lambert to replace NZogbia with someone who could create and score goals he'd have to change the way the team is set up - and if he did that, I'd have absolutely no issue with it But he's been playing N'Zogbia, it's just that the guy is no longer able to pass the ball on to team mates or score a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villianusa Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. It says 14 shots inside the box. 14. I understand what you're saying, but it's not a sample size of 1 game either. It doesn't explain a lot of things, but it is significant. I don't think it is. Anyone that watches our games knows that we don't have a one in two goal ratio this season because we are squandering a glut of guilt-edge chances every week. That stat is probably being inflated by headers from set-pieces and blocked shots etc. Exactly this. People aren't really suggesting we're creating lots of good chances and just not putting them away are they? This is the kind of thing where you need to mix stats with what you see with your eyes. The stat is that we score 1 goal per 14.3 shots inside the box, we are bottom of that table. Burnley are second from bottom with 1 goal per 7.4 shots inside the box. Chelsea are top with 1 goal per 3.4 shots inside the box. The stat is relevant in the sense that it shows we are way behind everyone else in the league for taking our chances. Just because we have chances inside the box, it doesn't mean that are good chances. Chelsea and Burnley are creating easier chances for their forwards to score, or are you trying to say that Fabregas creates a tap in for Costa from 6 yards is the same as Gabby passing to Benteke who is crowded out by three players 10 yards from goal are the same? A cross from Hutton into the box that Benteke gently heads into the keepers hands are the chances we are getting inside the box. We aren't carving teams open, like teams such as Burnley have down this season. We are missing some chances I will give you that, but we have in no way created chances such as other teams around us in the league. I would have loved to have the chances some of the teams have missed against us recently. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 22, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2015 We've been fined again. Lambert Out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walesavfc Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Roberto Martinez is a good manager (imo) and set Wigan up right. They still had limited finances and they still got relegated. People forget that Martinez was the manager who had them down the bottom most seasons, as well as being the manager that got them out of the relegation scrap. They tended to focus on the latter, ignoring the former. Martinez is an example of a manager who has a fair amount of things right, but struggles with a key element. Lambert's struggle is setting up a midfield, Martinez's is a defence Kindof ironic, then, that if Martinez were still at Wigan he'd be odds on to replace Lambert if Lambert were sacked. As a club we're not going to identify and attract a much better alternative. (There's a reason why this point has been raised before: It means everything, if we decide to get rid of Lambert). Given that the end result would most likely be the same in terms of rough position, I'd have Martinez over Lambert any day because at least we'd be entertained go ask the Neverton fans if they are being entertained, they want Martinez out...guess why ??... cos of his negative tactics (tippy tappy football) and no plan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts