shaggy Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Being a nice man or a decent chap doesn't or shouldn't disguise the fact that his record here has shown that he has mixed it with the worst managers at the club. The old adage that there should be no sentiment in business should apply to his performance here and I cannot wait for him to leave. Yes, he's mixed it with the worst managers but, hasn't he also had what is probably the worst squad in living memory? OK, people will say that he bought a load of them but, what are you supposed to do when you only have a relatively, in Premier League terms, small amount of money? People say he should have gone out and bought a playmaker - what with? Does 1 or 2 million really get you that kind of player? He tried for Hoolahan but the tool at Norwich wouldn't sell to us because of our previous dealings with them. I'm not saying I'm all for Lambert staying. Also not saying I want him gone. I just want us to be taken over by someone with a load of spare cash who can bring some nous in at the highest level to make the right managerial decision for our beloved club. Only an imbecile would reckon that Lambert hasn't worked under some very trying conditions but on the flip side of that he has been given staunch support from the fan base due to those conditions. Most of us did at the start buy into what he was trying to do and why he was doing it but where he has lost that support is that by in large we have gone backwards from the end of last season. I just don't think he has gotten the best out of what he had at the club and who he has brought to the club. His success rate in the transfer market has been limited even when those players have been fit and he has tinkered too much in trying to compensate for those poor signings on the pitch. There doesn't seem to be a method of play in place other than a repeat of the counter attack football that we'd all hoped we'd seen the back off when Martin O'Neill left. What I mean is we haven't moved forward at all with a more progressive style of football and really the signing of Grant Holt showed that more than anything else. The problem is at best we have stagnated and at worst regressed under Lambert. There really isn't anything there to suggest that even with increased funding that our style of play will change. We might have better players but I feel they would still be in a strangle hold under Lambert. If we and any new owner wants to to see better football attracting more fans back to the club then whoever that new owner may be, they must employ a manager whose footballing philosophy is to play passing incisive football. It really is as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Take out the middle two paragraphs (for they are complete bollox) and that's a good post Shaggy. Why not spend some time looking at the list of Lambert purchases v their cost before you go saying things like "There's no evidence that an increase in funding would change our style of play." Lambert's best signings have been his most expensive, which suggests the opposite of what you're saying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Take out the middle two paragraphs (for they are complete bollox) and that's a good post Shaggy. Why not spend some time looking at the list of Lambert purchases v their cost before you go saying things like "There's no evidence that an increase in funding would change our style of play." Lambert's best signings have been his most expensive, which suggests the opposite of what you're saying. Where is the evidence that an increase in funding would change the style of play then crackpot? For the most part you could argue the team even with lamberts more expensive signings have been still been shit because of the set up. The system could stay the same next season if lambert was still here, even with more expensive or so called better players though it still guarantees nothing. It certainly doesnt guarantee we will be better or change the system we play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Better players ==> More possession, slicker passing, more creativity ==> Less hoofball ==> Different style, innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Better players ==> More possession, slicker passing, more creativity ==> Less hoofball ==> Different style, innit? Harsh to say shaggy is talking bollocks when the basis of your argument is this completely unsubstantiated assumption. Absolutely no guarantee the play-style would change given better players, I'd like to think it would be the case but it's in no-way certain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted May 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted May 6, 2014 Better players ==> More possession, slicker passing, more creativity ==> Less hoofball ==> Different style, innit? Harsh to say shaggy is talking bollocks when the basis of your argument is this completely unsubstantiated assumption. Absolutely no guarantee the play-style would change given better players, I'd like to think it would be the case but it's in no-way certain. This has been my biggest concern with Lambert. I see nothing improving in terms of how we are trying to play our football over the past 2 seasons. Adding a few quality players doesn't suddenly change that. And if Lambert waited until having "quality" players before changing tact and implementing the style of football we want to see then he is a right idiot. He's basically wasted the last 2 years and we need to start again. If he remains and is backed we will have a better quality squad - and I fear Lambert would do as much with it as McLeish did with his better quality squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 A paragraph that uses Lambert's signing of Holt as an example of anything but poor funding is going to be bollox. A paragraph that ignores Lambert's success with more expensive signings while implying that he shouldn't be allowed to make any more, is going to be bollox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Seriously OVF, don't you think Lambert would have loved to sign the players we need to play in a different style? No manager refuses to sign players: Lambert would have wanted a creative CAM more than any of us. Maybe I'm in a minority, but I just don't believe that our problems could all be resolved if only the manager chose to tell the players we have to just go out and play in a different "style". The players you have determine what style you can play. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Seriously OVF, don't you think Lambert would have loved to sign the players we need to play in a different style? No manager refuses to sign players: Lambert would have wanted a creative CAM more than any of us. Maybe I'm in a minority, but I just don't believe that our problems could all be resolved if only the manager chose to tell the players we have to just go out and play in a different "style". The players you have determine what style you can play. Funny how Tony Pulis was able to get his Crystal Palace squad playing more effective football by getting them better organised and playing a system to suit the strengths of their better players. If a manager really can't have any influence on how a particular squad plays, it makes you wonder why clubs bother to employ them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Agree and disagree, many managers have taken over sides and with a minimum turnover of players have completely revolutionised the way they play; no doubt different players can make the transition easier but it's not as if a player has been breed to be a passer or a hoof-baller you'd hope a player at the highest level would at least be able to function. The problem I have with the style of play being completely down to the quality of the players is that they have shown the ability to play, successfully, a more positive and progressive style numerous times so surely the ability is there to a degree. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lambert could simply say; "Ok lads play like Real Madrid" and it would work but I do think we could do better and it's not as simple as you're suggesting that all of the problems can be solved by more money, as I haven't really seen much to give me the confidence that Lambert could take us forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I would like him given more time with proper backing. Being hostile won't change my mind. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted May 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted May 6, 2014 Seriously OVF, don't you think Lambert would have loved to sign the players we need to play in a different style? No manager refuses to sign players: Lambert would have wanted a creative CAM more than any of us. Maybe I'm in a minority, but I just don't believe that our problems could all be resolved if only the manager chose to tell the players we have to just go out and play in a different "style". The players you have determine what style you can play. There's 2 things to pick up on there. Lambert signed Tonev, Helenius and Kozac as cover (and rarely played them). We had no CAM and he chose to not bother buying one. That was a big mistake. Also, when signing young talented players - as we have been doing under Lambert - then they do actually need to be coached. They don't come with preconceived ideas or experience. They do as they are told to do and they learn. The time to get them playing the right style is immediately - not if/when better quality arrives. That way the new quality arrivals would fit right in and can hit the ground running rather than waiting for the rest of the squad to get "up to speed" and taking yet another season of transition/struggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Let's change manager every 1-2 seasons. Proven method of success 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Briny, for every Tony Pulis (apparently everyone's top fave managerialist of the day) there's four or five new managers who've failed to have any positive impact on their side's performance. If Tony Pulis is the exception, give me the rule. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 OVF, Kozak was very much needed. He got injured, or we'd be playing him every week now. The other two combined cost less than half what you want to spend on a CAM if you're a young side building for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Let's change manager every 1-2 seasons. Proven method of success Right because that's what people have suggested isn't it, these straw man arguments are extremely tedious and do nothing to enrich the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misanthrope Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Let's change manager every 1-2 seasons. Proven method of success We should just keep them on despite any lack of merit and hope they eventually come good instead. Keep crossing our fingers on away trips to Braintree that he is a SAF in the making and just needs more financial clout! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Let's change manager every 1-2 seasons. Proven method of success We should just keep them on despite any lack of merit and hope they eventually come good instead. Keep crossing our fingers on away trips to Braintree that he is a SAF in the making and just needs more financial clout! Why does everything have to be polar opposites? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 When Man City destroy us 10-0 on Wednesday all you Lambert Luvvies are going to want him out as much as everyone else. I won't I couldn't care less what happens over the next two games the summer is all that counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted May 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted May 6, 2014 OVF, Kozak was very much needed. He got injured, or we'd be playing him every week now. The other two combined cost less than half what you want to spend on a CAM if you're a young side building for the future. I can't say I agree. Yes, him being injured is not great. But let's look at what we have that can play in the striker role: - Benteke - Agbonlahor - Wiemann - Bowery - Carruthers Now you can say what you like about their ability - but cover? We had plenty. How many CAM's do we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts