Villa getting an early stuffing

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Why not admit defeat ricardo? You started this thread to have a dig at Lambert fans and its backfired badly.

Now you''re reduced to the baseless "he knew we had topped out" nonsense. Had Villa not come knocking and McNally not tried to prevent their talking to him, he would have stayed.

He wasn''t taking any nob opening so he could flee the scene of the crime.[/quote]You should get a job as a mind reader Houston you seem to know what went on behind the scenes.. Being one of Lamberts biggest fans I can''t think over any reason why I should want to have a dig at anybody else who rated him. If you care to look you will find that my expectation was that he would eventually move to a big club and I meant bigger than Villa.Nobody sadder than me when he went mate. My only gripe with him is that he jumped ship but there''s no denying that he had form in that respect.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

We all love Lambert and loved the time he was here. But that doesn''t mean all of us want to use him as a stick to beat Hughton with. Especially when that stick is quite brittle.

 

 

[Warren Hill 0]

I don''t love him.

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

We all love Lambert and loved the time he was here. But that doesn''t mean all of us want to use him as a stick to beat Hughton with. Especially when that stick is quite brittle.

 

 

[/quote]But you know they will Nutty.Lambert aint coming back, some people need to move on as well.Did you watch the game? 100 mph stuff but end to end, a typical old fashioned derby match but the empty seats surprised me.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I watched it. It was better than a lot of the games on TV.

 

WBA are fast becoming the draw experts!

 

 

 

 

 

[Houston Canary 0]

The tone of your messages oj this thread is one of "get over it, he''s gone and our guy is better".

Picking out weaknesses, comments on when WBA should hsve scored more, the title of thid thread, THE FACT THIS THREAD EXISTS!

.

[JF 694]

@nutty We all love Lambert and loved the time he was here. But that doesn''t mean all of us want to use him as a stick to beat Hughton with. Especially when that stick is quite brittle.

But yet again hughton makes it all to easy for us to beat him with it, doesnt he? Lambert at 2-0 down away from home makes a triple sub on 56 mins to rescue the point, we all know what clueless chris done.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

@JF

 

If only life were that simple. It could just as easily be said that Hughton managed to score 2 goals to get a point from Everton. We all know what clueless Paul done.

 

We''ll find out what clueless Chris does when we go to the Hawthornes next month.

 

 

[gorlestongirl 0]

I''m neither a Hughton outer nor a lovey, but it may be worth pointing out that it wasn''t particularly ''brave'' of Lambert to bring on 3 regular first teamers who were only on the bench because they have had injuries. He was 2 down and had to do something. Hughton was in a similar situation against Spurs in the Cup last season and brought on the big guns, which won the match. It''s a fairly routine thing to do Iwould imagine, although such is Lambert''s reputation that it is seen as courageous and unusual.

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]The tone of your messages oj this thread is one of "get over it, he''s gone and our guy is better".

Picking out weaknesses, comments on when WBA should hsve scored more, the title of thid thread, THE FACT THIS THREAD EXISTS!

.[/quote]

Yes, I do think we need to get over it, there''s no other choice if we want to move on. I fail to see anywhere that I have commented "our guy is better". Please point it out if you can find it.WBA should have scored more, read any report in any newspaper and you will find everyone agrees that WBA blew it. Villa had plenty of attempts but mostly off target while WBA missed 3 absolute sitters. No wonder their fans were unhappy at the end.The thead exists because it was the only game of the day and of course we have more than a passing interest in the result. Was I disappointed at the final score? yes, because Villa look more like being our relegation rivals than WBA and I don''t want to see prospective rivals picking up points.I posted the thread at 8.16pm when Villa were indeed getting a stuffing, hence the title and every other post is a comment on what was a very exciting game. I described it as end to end and commented that if Villa get a goal it would get interesting. Nothing at all that could be described as a "dig at Lambert fans " as you claimed.I think I''m due an apology but I doubt I''ll get it.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

[quote user="gorlestongirl"]I''m neither a Hughton outer nor a lovey, but it may be worth pointing out that it wasn''t particularly ''brave'' of Lambert to bring on 3 regular first teamers who were only on the bench because they have had injuries. He was 2 down and had to do something. Hughton was in a similar situation against Spurs in the Cup last season and brought on the big guns, which won the match. It''s a fairly routine thing to do Iwould imagine, although such is Lambert''s reputation that it is seen as courageous and unusual.[/quote]

 

It is routine. Or it should be. Luck''s out, cut stout, but so often we see Hughton doing absolutely nothing to change a losing situation. Either he cant see its a losing situation, or doesnt know what to do about it. If you are losing and taking home zero points, surely you should twist. But far too often Hughton sticks and watches us limp to another poor result. Hughton when he finds himself goals down should also ''have to do something''. Yet rarely does he

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

[quote user="gorlestongirl"]I''m neither a Hughton outer nor a lovey, but it may be worth pointing out that it wasn''t particularly ''brave'' of Lambert to bring on 3 regular first teamers who were only on the bench because they have had injuries. He was 2 down and had to do something. Hughton was in a similar situation against Spurs in the Cup last season and brought on the big guns, which won the match. It''s a fairly routine thing to do Iwould imagine, although such is Lambert''s reputation that it is seen as courageous and unusual.[/quote]

 

It is routine. Or it should be. Luck''s out, cut stout, but so often we see Hughton doing absolutely nothing to change a losing situation. Either he cant see its a losing situation, or doesnt know what to do about it. If you are losing and taking home zero points, surely you should twist. But far too often Hughton sticks and watches us limp to another poor result. Hughton when he finds himself goals down should also ''have to do something''. Yet rarely does he

[/quote]I think its fair criticism to say that Hughton is far less adventurous than Lambert when it comes to subs. The thing is when you are behind you have to gamble and you can either be right or wrong. We all remember the time we were reduced to 10 men against Brentford, Lambert went 3 at the back and we won the game. We tried a similar trick against Southampton when Rusty was dismissed but that time it failed and we lost another goal. We remember the successes more than the failures.Nobody can deny that Lambert was a great gambler in his time with us and although against lesser opposition it often paid off. Last night he put all his cards on the table at 56 minutes and came away with a point and we all agreee that it was a touch of genius.I wonder what would have been said if he did the same thing and then lost a player to a bad injury on 60 minutes and had to play the last half hour with ten men?You gamble and you either win or lose, one way you''re a genius the other way you look a fool. Perhaps the reason why we all rated Lambert so highly was because he didn''t really care what anybody else thought about him and that''s why IMO he is City''s greatest ever manager. In a way its a bit like Darren Huckerby, we will never see another one like him.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

[quote user="gorlestongirl"]I''m neither a Hughton outer nor a lovey, but it may be worth pointing out that it wasn''t particularly ''brave'' of Lambert to bring on 3 regular first teamers who were only on the bench because they have had injuries. He was 2 down and had to do something. Hughton was in a similar situation against Spurs in the Cup last season and brought on the big guns, which won the match. It''s a fairly routine thing to do Iwould imagine, although such is Lambert''s reputation that it is seen as courageous and unusual.[/quote]

 

It is routine. Or it should be. Luck''s out, cut stout, but so often we see Hughton doing absolutely nothing to change a losing situation. Either he cant see its a losing situation, or doesnt know what to do about it. If you are losing and taking home zero points, surely you should twist. But far too often Hughton sticks and watches us limp to another poor result. Hughton when he finds himself goals down should also ''have to do something''. Yet rarely does he

[/quote]I think its fair criticism to say that Hughton is far less adventurous than Lambert when it comes to subs. The thing is when you are behind you have to gamble and you can either be right or wrong. We all remember the time we were reduced to 10 men against Brentford, Lambert went 3 at the back and we won the game. We tried a similar trick against Southampton when Rusty was dismissed but that time it failed and we lost another goal. We remember the successes more than the failures.Nobody can deny that Lambert was a great gambler in his time with us and although against lesser opposition it often paid off. Last night he put all his cards on the table at 56 minutes and came away with a point and we all agreee that it was a touch of genius.I wonder what would have been said if he did the same thing and then lost a player to a bad injury on 60 minutes and had to play the last half hour with ten men?You gamble and you either win or lose, one way you''re a genius the other way you look a fool. Perhaps the reason why we all rated Lambert so highly was because he didn''t really care what anybody else thought about him and that''s why IMO he is City''s greatest ever manager. In a way its a bit like Darren Huckerby, we will never see another one like him.[/quote]

 

But thats just it - its not a gamble. Its only a gamble when you have something to lose. When you are already losing its no gamble at all. Where is the risk? So you''re 2-0 down, chase the game and lose 4-0. Who cares? You still take home zero points. Goal difference rarely matters, so its all about the number of points you take home. Trying to change the game when you''re heading for defeat isnt a gamble

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I for one remember lambert using all his subs with 10 mins to go when we were winning against Sunderland at home and there was no need to make the 3rd change, Vaughan was then injured and we had avery uncomfortable end to the game defending with 10 men. Two sides of the man''s character.

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

[quote user="gorlestongirl"]I''m neither a Hughton outer nor a lovey, but it may be worth pointing out that it wasn''t particularly ''brave'' of Lambert to bring on 3 regular first teamers who were only on the bench because they have had injuries. He was 2 down and had to do something. Hughton was in a similar situation against Spurs in the Cup last season and brought on the big guns, which won the match. It''s a fairly routine thing to do Iwould imagine, although such is Lambert''s reputation that it is seen as courageous and unusual.[/quote]

 

It is routine. Or it should be. Luck''s out, cut stout, but so often we see Hughton doing absolutely nothing to change a losing situation. Either he cant see its a losing situation, or doesnt know what to do about it. If you are losing and taking home zero points, surely you should twist. But far too often Hughton sticks and watches us limp to another poor result. Hughton when he finds himself goals down should also ''have to do something''. Yet rarely does he

[/quote]I think its fair criticism to say that Hughton is far less adventurous than Lambert when it comes to subs. The thing is when you are behind you have to gamble and you can either be right or wrong. We all remember the time we were reduced to 10 men against Brentford, Lambert went 3 at the back and we won the game. We tried a similar trick against Southampton when Rusty was dismissed but that time it failed and we lost another goal. We remember the successes more than the failures.Nobody can deny that Lambert was a great gambler in his time with us and although against lesser opposition it often paid off. Last night he put all his cards on the table at 56 minutes and came away with a point and we all agreee that it was a touch of genius.I wonder what would have been said if he did the same thing and then lost a player to a bad injury on 60 minutes and had to play the last half hour with ten men?You gamble and you either win or lose, one way you''re a genius the other way you look a fool. Perhaps the reason why we all rated Lambert so highly was because he didn''t really care what anybody else thought about him and that''s why IMO he is City''s greatest ever manager. In a way its a bit like Darren Huckerby, we will never see another one like him.[/quote]

 

But thats just it - its not a gamble. Its only a gamble when you have something to lose. When you are already losing its no gamble at all. Where is the risk? So you''re 2-0 down, chase the game and lose 4-0. Who cares? You still take home zero points. Goal difference rarely matters, so its all about the number of points you take home. Trying to change the game when you''re heading for defeat isnt a gamble

[/quote]Of course its a gamble. Something that is in the lap of the Gods whether it turns out good or bad is by its very nature a gamble. I don''t claim to be a Clairvoyant so I don''t know if the difference between 2-0 and 4-0 will be significant at the end of the season but nor do you. Putting your subs on is a judgement call and putting all on at once is a gamble. Heads you win tails you lose, its a gamble.Put it another way if every time you were a goal behind a half time and your manager chucked all three subs on before the hour mark and subsequently finished up playing with ten men a few times I wonder how long it would be before someone got a bit annoyed.Managers have to make a judgement call, some are braver than others, some are luckier than others, so whats new? We all know Lambert is less cautious than Hughton but then again most of them are.

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]I for one remember lambert using all his subs with 10 mins to go when we were winning against Sunderland at home and there was no need to make the 3rd change, Vaughan was then injured and we had avery uncomfortable end to the game defending with 10 men. Two sides of the man''s character.[/quote]

The bravest stuff he did was going three at the back, it often paid off for us. In the derby game with 1pswich I recall Keane tried a similar trick in the second half when reduced to ten men. It didn''t work for him and he paid for it with his job eventually. As Napoleon said when asked what kind of Generals he wanted, "I want lucky ones". Lambert was brave and lucky in equal measure.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

[quote user="gorlestongirl"]I''m neither a Hughton outer nor a lovey, but it may be worth pointing out that it wasn''t particularly ''brave'' of Lambert to bring on 3 regular first teamers who were only on the bench because they have had injuries. He was 2 down and had to do something. Hughton was in a similar situation against Spurs in the Cup last season and brought on the big guns, which won the match. It''s a fairly routine thing to do Iwould imagine, although such is Lambert''s reputation that it is seen as courageous and unusual.[/quote]

 

It is routine. Or it should be. Luck''s out, cut stout, but so often we see Hughton doing absolutely nothing to change a losing situation. Either he cant see its a losing situation, or doesnt know what to do about it. If you are losing and taking home zero points, surely you should twist. But far too often Hughton sticks and watches us limp to another poor result. Hughton when he finds himself goals down should also ''have to do something''. Yet rarely does he

[/quote]I think its fair criticism to say that Hughton is far less adventurous than Lambert when it comes to subs. The thing is when you are behind you have to gamble and you can either be right or wrong. We all remember the time we were reduced to 10 men against Brentford, Lambert went 3 at the back and we won the game. We tried a similar trick against Southampton when Rusty was dismissed but that time it failed and we lost another goal. We remember the successes more than the failures.Nobody can deny that Lambert was a great gambler in his time with us and although against lesser opposition it often paid off. Last night he put all his cards on the table at 56 minutes and came away with a point and we all agreee that it was a touch of genius.I wonder what would have been said if he did the same thing and then lost a player to a bad injury on 60 minutes and had to play the last half hour with ten men?You gamble and you either win or lose, one way you''re a genius the other way you look a fool. Perhaps the reason why we all rated Lambert so highly was because he didn''t really care what anybody else thought about him and that''s why IMO he is City''s greatest ever manager. In a way its a bit like Darren Huckerby, we will never see another one like him.[/quote]

 

But thats just it - its not a gamble. Its only a gamble when you have something to lose. When you are already losing its no gamble at all. Where is the risk? So you''re 2-0 down, chase the game and lose 4-0. Who cares? You still take home zero points. Goal difference rarely matters, so its all about the number of points you take home. Trying to change the game when you''re heading for defeat isnt a gamble

[/quote]Of course its a gamble. Something that is in the lap of the Gods whether it turns out good or bad is by its very nature a gamble. I don''t claim to be a Clairvoyant so I don''t know if the difference between 2-0 and 4-0 will be significant at the end of the season but nor do you. Putting your subs on is a judgement call and putting all on at once is a gamble. Heads you win tails you lose, its a gamble.Put it another way if every time you were a goal behind a half time and your manager chucked all three subs on before the hour mark and subsequently finished up playing with ten men a few times I wonder how long it would be before someone got a bit annoyed.Managers have to make a judgement call, some are braver than others, some are luckier than others, so whats new? We all know Lambert is less cautious than Hughton but then again most of them are.[/quote]

 

Happy to accept that a triple substitution is a gamble with regards to injuries. But when you are already losing, to make a change to try to get a point from a losing position is not a gamble. i dont accept you can lose ''more''. Zero points is still zero points whether you lose by 4 or 2. Goal difference is very rarely more important that points. How many teams get relegated on goal difference? Far fewer than those who get relegated on points. I would rather risk a heavier defeat if the trade off is the risk of a point

[snake-eyes 13]

You make your own luck.

You have to buy a ticket to win!

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="snake-eyes"]You make your own luck.

You have to buy a ticket to win![/quote]You do indeed but there are always more losers than winnersIf you could make it there would be a big queue of buyers. Unfortunately you can''t.The definition of luck:-success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one’s own actions:

If it could be manufactured you could never lose so it''s either skill or it''s luck.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

They were making a big fuss this morning(on irish radio) about how ''Lamberts Villa'' had come back from 2 down(shane long goals...hence the irish interest).....it was also quoted that villa have collected 7pts after being in a losing position this season. Brave manager not afraid to go for it.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Fortune favours the Brave.

[Surfer 1,547]

I guess at the end of the day, Lambert is the manager who best reflects supporter''s ideas of how to manage a club - " if I was in charge I''d go for it " - which makes him the "better" manager. The fact is the records for Lambert and Hughton are surprisingly similar, but it certainly doesn''t feel like the same level of "success" at all.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Well put surfer, better to play an expansive attacking game and get 42-48 pts (and be exiting to watch)than get the similar pts total and be dull to watch....i know which i''d prefer.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="wcorkcanary"]They were making a big fuss this morning(on irish radio) about how ''Lamberts Villa'' had come back from 2 down(shane long goals...hence the irish interest).....it was also quoted that villa have collected 7pts after being in a losing position this season. Brave manager not afraid to go for it.[/quote]

 

I bet the thing that wasn''t reported is that Hughton is in the top 6 for points gained from losing positions.

Villa 7

Man U 6

Cardiff 5

Chelsea 5

Everton 5

Norwich 4

Stoke 4

 

They wouldn''t be aware of it but it''s strange that our fans who watch the games aren''t aware of it.

 

 

 

[Houston Canary 0]

Of course I won''t apologize for you desperately trying to change the tone of this thread you started. You''re tilting at windmills now. You''re trying to change the context of your own words. You remind me of the guilty liar wiping sweat from his brow while being grilled by the prosecutor.

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Of course I won''t apologize for you desperately trying to change the tone of this thread you started. You''re tilting at windmills now. You''re trying to change the context of your own words. You remind me of the guilty liar wiping sweat from his brow while being grilled by the prosecutor.[/quote]Why am I not surprised.And you remind me of the Texan lawyer full of bluster and desperate to convince a jury despite being unable to point to one shred of evidence.Your Conspiracy Theory is alive and well only in your own head.

[*** 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Houston Canary"]Of course I won''t apologize for you desperately trying to change the tone of this thread you started. You''re tilting at windmills now. You''re trying to change the context of your own words. You remind me of the guilty liar wiping sweat from his brow while being grilled by the prosecutor.[/quote]

Why am I not surprised.

And you remind me of the Texan lawyer full of bluster and desperate to convince a jury despite being unable to point to one shred of evidence.

Your Conspiracy Theory is alive and well only in your own head.


[/quote]

 

Sod off Ricardo, this gloating thread you started blew up in your face, man up and admit it.

[ricardo 7,344]

[quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Houston Canary"]Of course I won''t apologize for you desperately trying to change the tone of this thread you started. You''re tilting at windmills now. You''re trying to change the context of your own words. You remind me of the guilty liar wiping sweat from his brow while being grilled by the prosecutor.

[/quote]

Why am I not surprised.

And you remind me of the Texan lawyer full of bluster and desperate to convince a jury despite being unable to point to one shred of evidence.

Your Conspiracy Theory is alive and well only in your own head.


[/quote]

 

Sod off Ricardo, this gloating thread you started blew up in your face, man up and admit it.

[/quote]

Whoops, they are out in force this morning LOL. How are things in Suffolk?

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="snake-eyes"]You make your own luck.

You have to buy a ticket to win![/quote]

Buying a ticket just gives you a chance.

Lambert bought and won against WBA and good for him. Hughton bought and lost when he changed Tettey for Hoolahan against Arsenal.

No difference in action. Only in outcome.

The chance that succeeds is brave and praised. That which fails is reckless and ignored or attacked.

[Houston Canary 0]

Wiz nailed it. ricardo, I''ve given several examples so your comeback is what''s full of bluster.

How often do you start threads about the Monday game? There was no reason to this time other than what I pointed out. Your excuses for doing so only make sense if it''s a regular habit.