Manager Paul Lambert

[VillaForever1970]

As i said to you in the other thread. Not one person has disputed the fact that we've improved from last season so we all agree with you. So I don't know who you're aiming this at.

Err they are, some people refuse to even accept its happened!

[Mantis]

What's with the fixation on Lambert signings and non-Lambert signings? Yes some of them played poorly last night (although both goals were scored by Lambert players) but there have been games where they have been the best players.

 

Just seems like another stick to beat the manager with.

 

at the moment we are still a very poor team.

 

If we're such a poor team then how come we're mid-table?

Edited November 26, 2013 by Mantis

[smetrov]

We are steadily collecting points - so i am not complaining - I would hope Lamberts next moves in the transfer market are creative type players - we do seriously struggle in the department.

[Stevo985]

One point alluded to the fact that three of our most influential players last night was nothing to do with Lambert (not Lambert signings) and got the reply 'bollocks.' That response actually made me chuckle as it came from a very well respected source.

No no.

You've added the sentence in brackets there, "not Lambert signings"

That's very different from "nothing to do with Lambert" and wasn't in the original post.

The former is, quite obviously, non disputable fact.

The latter is an opinion. One which is, imo, bollocks. Mods can act on that word if they wish, but I stand by my post.

[Stevo985]

 

at the moment we are still a very poor team.

 

If we're such a poor team then how come we're mid-table?

After having the hardest set of opening fixtures of any team in the league.

[PieFacE]

Add to that, our most recent game was a 2-0 win over Cardiff and you can see why Lambert probably felt it wouldn't be that ridiculous to start this game with that team.  They won last time out and it protects our 3 returning players.  Worthy of criticism?  I don't think so.

 

I believe a manager of a football club shouldn't pick a team by "well this team won the last game so why not this one?". That's poor. A manager should play the opposition and change his tactics to counter the tactics of the opposition. That's football. It's a bit harsh on the players that played well against Cardiff but again, it's football. This is where I think Lambert lacks a bit of tactical knowledge. It's easy to react to a game when it's not going your way, you have nothing to lose. 

 

Do you believe that playing 4 against their 5 was a good move? Doesn't that just come across as being really naive to you? 

[BOF]

Add to that, our most recent game was a 2-0 win over Cardiff and you can see why Lambert probably felt it wouldn't be that ridiculous to start this game with that team.  They won last time out and it protects our 3 returning players.  Worthy of criticism?  I don't think so.

I believe a manager of a football club shouldn't pick a team by "well this team won the last game so why not this one?". That's poor.

That's really not the point that was being made. I don't believe for a minute that if Delph, Gabby & Weimann were fully fit that he would have gone with the side that beat Cardiff. But they weren't. So in that particular situation there was a requirement to protect some very important players so it then became something that made sense.

[Morpheus]

 

One point alluded to the fact that three of our most influential players last night was nothing to do with Lambert (not Lambert signings) and got the reply 'bollocks.' That response actually made me chuckle as it came from a very well respected source.

No no.

You've added the sentence in brackets there, "not Lambert signings"

That's very different from "nothing to do with Lambert" and wasn't in the original post.

The former is, quite obviously, non disputable fact.

The latter is an opinion. One which is, imo, bollocks. Mods can act on that word if they wish, but I stand by my post.

 

Thats exactly what the poster was implying though and i think you know that Stevo985.

[Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring]

The fact is that before those players came on we could and should have been five down and unfortunately most of the team that started the game last night were Lambert signings.

 

They only had four shots on target all game, so how should they have been 5-0 up?  Also what about our chances? Their's could/should have been goals but our chances don't count?

 

They had four shots on target to our seven, and eleven shots in total to our fifteen.

[Isa]

Add to that, our most recent game was a 2-0 win over Cardiff and you can see why Lambert probably felt it wouldn't be that ridiculous to start this game with that team.  They won last time out and it protects our 3 returning players.  Worthy of criticism?  I don't think so.

I believe a manager of a football club shouldn't pick a team by "well this team won the last game so why not this one?". That's poor.

That's really not the point that was being made. I don't believe for a minute that if Delph, Gabby & Weimann were fully fit that he would have gone with the side that beat Cardiff. But they weren't. So in that particular situation there was a requirement to protect some very important players so it then became something that made sense.

But was there any point in bulking out the squad in the summer if he can only play our preferred formation when Gabby and Weimann are fit?

[Stevo985]

 

 

One point alluded to the fact that three of our most influential players last night was nothing to do with Lambert (not Lambert signings) and got the reply 'bollocks.' That response actually made me chuckle as it came from a very well respected source.

No no.

You've added the sentence in brackets there, "not Lambert signings"

That's very different from "nothing to do with Lambert" and wasn't in the original post.

The former is, quite obviously, non disputable fact.

The latter is an opinion. One which is, imo, bollocks. Mods can act on that word if they wish, but I stand by my post.

 

Thats exactly what the poster was implying though and i think you know that Stevo985.

 

Is it? That's certainly not how I read it. Why would I reply as such if I knew that? it's obviously a fact that Lambert didn't sign those players so why would I disagree with it?

And the poster has gone on to back up the fact that that wasn't what he meant (a view which he's perfectly entitled to) in the reactions thread.

 

So no. That's not exactly what he was implying.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Stevo985

[PieFacE]

 

 

Add to that, our most recent game was a 2-0 win over Cardiff and you can see why Lambert probably felt it wouldn't be that ridiculous to start this game with that team.  They won last time out and it protects our 3 returning players.  Worthy of criticism?  I don't think so.

I believe a manager of a football club shouldn't pick a team by "well this team won the last game so why not this one?". That's poor.

 

That's really not the point that was being made. I don't believe for a minute that if Delph, Gabby & Weimann were fully fit that he would have gone with the side that beat Cardiff. But they weren't. So in that particular situation there was a requirement to protect some very important players so it then became something that made sense.

 

To me though the fact those players couldn't play made the decision more baffling. We were effectively putting out a weakened team, with less numbers in midfield. That's just mad. 

[Morpheus]

 

The fact is that before those players came on we could and should have been five down and unfortunately most of the team that started the game last night were Lambert signings.

 

They only had four shots on target all game, so how should they have been 5-0 up?  Also what about our chances? Their's could/should have been goals but our chances don't count?

 

They had four shots on target to our seven, and eleven shots in total to our fifteen.

 

Clear cut chances is what i was referring to.

[BOF]

But was there any point in bulking out the squad in the summer if he can only play our preferred formation when Gabby and Weimann are fit?

If 2 of your first choice 3 strikers get injured I think you could reasonably expect a change in plans. You'd do well to name 3 teams in the league who could go into a game unchanged or unaffected system-wise without 2 of their 3 strikers available (and the third one clearly still affected). If you then factor in the oft-debated funding that is coming from Lerner I think any attempts to criticise Lambert become an act of desperation that reflect more on the poster than on the manager.

[Isa]

But was there any point in bulking out the squad in the summer if he can only play our preferred formation when Gabby and Weimann are fit?

If 2 of your first choice 3 strikers get injured I think you could reasonably expect a change in plans. You'd do well to name 3 teams in the league who could go into a game unchanged or unaffected system-wise without 2 of their 3 strikers available (and the third one clearly still affected). If you then factor in the oft-debated funding that is coming from Lerner I think any attempts to criticise Lambert become an act of desperation that reflect more on the poster than on the manager.

Not really. You are not seriously saying that he had no choice other then to play a diamond formation that was totally ineffective against Cardiff are you?

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

One point alluded to the fact that three of our most influential players last night was nothing to do with Lambert (not Lambert signings) and got the reply 'bollocks.' That response actually made me chuckle as it came from a very well respected source.

No no.

You've added the sentence in brackets there, "not Lambert signings"

That's very different from "nothing to do with Lambert" and wasn't in the original post.

The former is, quite obviously, non disputable fact.

The latter is an opinion. One which is, imo, bollocks. Mods can act on that word if they wish, but I stand by my post.

 

Thats exactly what the poster was implying though and i think you know that Stevo985.

 

Is it? That's certainly not how I read it. Why would I reply as such if I knew that? it's obviously a fact that Lambert didn't sign those players so why would I disagree with it?

And the poster has gone on to back up the fact that that wasn't what he meant (a view which he's perfectly entitled to) in the reactions thread.

 

So no. That's not exactly what he was implying.

 

Had a wee look in the reactions thread and haven't seen anything to suggest i've quoted the poster wrongly and he hasn't corrected my post which you are referring to.

[BOF]

But was there any point in bulking out the squad in the summer if he can only play our preferred formation when Gabby and Weimann are fit?

If 2 of your first choice 3 strikers get injured I think you could reasonably expect a change in plans. You'd do well to name 3 teams in the league who could go into a game unchanged or unaffected system-wise without 2 of their 3 strikers available (and the third one clearly still affected). If you then factor in the oft-debated funding that is coming from Lerner I think any attempts to criticise Lambert become an act of desperation that reflect more on the poster than on the manager.

Not really. You are not seriously saying that he had no choice other then to play a diamond formation that was totally ineffective against Cardiff are you?

No.

[VillaChris]

I was against playing the same team as started v Cardiff, we weren't exactly convinving against them for 70 minutes and WBA is a much harder game.

 

I'd have liked to have seen two of Gabby, Delph, Weimann start last night but of course I don't know their exact fitness (that said it's not like we haven't rushed players back from injury before).

 

That said and this is why it's easier playing fantasy manager than the real thing....say we'd start two of them and yet the first half had panned out as cluelessly as it did. Suddenly you're looking at a bench with not many game turning options and we'd probably have lost.

 

Lambert has flaws but he's doing o.k for me. I expect to be back in the top half by Saturday evening which is fair enough for this season.

[BOF]

say we'd start two of them and yet the first half had panned out as cluelessly as it did. Suddenly you're looking at a bench with not many game turning options and we'd probably have lost.

And to continue that point. Say you do start with two of them and you know they only have 30 minutes of football in them; max one half of football. You're now losing and have to weaken your team by taking them off or risk a re-occurrence of the injury and a longer term absence if they stay on. That would be negligence. But it's a very simple and convenient superficial criticism to make that he didn't start with his strongest team. Maybe he did learn that the replacements can't be trusted that much. He might have learned more about his squad last night than we think.

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

 

One point alluded to the fact that three of our most influential players last night was nothing to do with Lambert (not Lambert signings) and got the reply 'bollocks.' That response actually made me chuckle as it came from a very well respected source.

No no.

You've added the sentence in brackets there, "not Lambert signings"

That's very different from "nothing to do with Lambert" and wasn't in the original post.

The former is, quite obviously, non disputable fact.

The latter is an opinion. One which is, imo, bollocks. Mods can act on that word if they wish, but I stand by my post.

 

Thats exactly what the poster was implying though and i think you know that Stevo985.

 

Is it? That's certainly not how I read it. Why would I reply as such if I knew that? it's obviously a fact that Lambert didn't sign those players so why would I disagree with it?

And the poster has gone on to back up the fact that that wasn't what he meant (a view which he's perfectly entitled to) in the reactions thread.

 

So no. That's not exactly what he was implying.

 

Had a wee look in the reactions thread and haven't seen anything to suggest i've quoted the poster wrongly and he hasn't corrected my post which you are referring to.

 

Then you're not looking very hard.

 

It's a moot point. I've had this discussion with the poster in the reactions thread and it's run it's course. Nothing more to see here.