Paul Lambert

[andym]

stats dont alway tell the whole story, but generally if you have more of the ball, create more chances and take more shots you are going to score more goals and get more points. we are very poor in all of those departments.

 

and even if you ignore our terrible stats, you only need to watch us to know we play terrible football under lambert, and have done for the majority of his time here.

 

sit back, work hard closing down and then hope to nick 1 or 2 on the break (or hope benteke does something amazing and creates something for himself). I have seen nothing in his time here that makes me think he is able to get us to play good, attacking football consistently, or even that he wants us to.

 

and good attacking football doesnt mean that you have to sacrifice solidity and open yourselves up to having 5 or 6 stuck past you. plenty of other teams manage to get the balance right.

[DelboyVilla]

Just because somebody doesn't have the same criticisms as you doesn't mean they're "burying their heads in the sand".

 

 

Well just the same as someone who critises Lambert is not 'pathetic, boring or a hater'? Plus people who critise cannot be a fan apparently?

 

And apparently you don't need the ball or have to shoot on target to win games? Yes we can all act like idiots and make stupid statements it's really easy!

[Mantis]

 

Just because somebody doesn't have the same criticisms as you doesn't mean they're "burying their heads in the sand".

 

 

Well just the same as someone who critises Lambert is not 'pathetic, boring or a hater'? Plus people who critise cannot be a fan apparently?

 

And apparently you don't need the ball or have to shoot on target to win games? Yes we can all act like idiots and make stupid statements it's really easy!

 

Who has actually said this?

[bobzy]

stats dont alway tell the whole story, but generally if you have more of the ball, create more chances and take more shots you are going to score more goals and get more points. we are very poor in all of those departments.

 

and even if you ignore our terrible stats, you only need to watch us to know we play terrible football under lambert, and have done for the majority of his time here.

 

sit back, work hard closing down and then hope to nick 1 or 2 on the break (or hope benteke does something amazing and creates something for himself). I have seen nothing in his time here that makes me think he is able to get us to play good, attacking football consistently, or even that he wants us to.

 

and good attacking football doesnt mean that you have to sacrifice solidity and open yourselves up to having 5 or 6 stuck past you. plenty of other teams manage to get the balance right.

 

But for the time being, with a weak squad, why does it need to be anything more than this?  The football only needs to be able to be effective, not pretty.  I agree that we should be more of an attacking unit (we simply won't win games otherwise) but I think it'll be better once Benteke is back - we've missed him a ridiculous amount.

 

Jose Mourinho, with all the riches in the world, plays a defensive-based game.  If you don't conceed many, you don't lose many.  We're not Chelsea, we don't have the money of Chelsea, but the strategy is completely valid.

 

Joyful, expansive, attacking football is a dream scenario.  Grinding out or snatching wins/draws to enable us to stay in the league is the reality.  Hopefully we can progress towards the former - for now, I'll take the latter.

[Isa]

 

I watched the Chelsea vs. Leicester game and thought Leicester gave a brilliant account of themselves (especially in the first half) and looked a threat on the break - although I don't really remember any chances of note aside from a one on one (I think?) that was missed by someone.  The second half, Chelsea scored twice and could've had a couple more but, naturally, a team playing to close down and counter attack would get tired and conceed (does this sound familiar?).

 

I didn't watch the Swansea game - only saw the highlights on MOTD so, granted, I can't comment on the exact details of how the game was in terms of them "giving it a go".

Actually Leicester found themselves in quite a few good attacking positions even in the first half, most of which were squandered by Mahrez, and looked the more threatening side for the first hour. Swansea were the more threatening side in the first half and had some good opportunities to make it 0-2, which again were wasted. On the other hand, at no point were we remotely threatening and the game was basically over after seven minutes due to the fact we went there to play for a draw. Therein lies the difference.

And no, having seven shots obviously doesn't mean scoring three goals.  Although, if you think it should, that means Chelsea would've scored 13 against Swansea.

Err...we were going by YOUR reasoning. The reasoning that says that any shot should be considered a chance.

Here's another one for you though. In our match at Anfield, Liverpool registed 18 shots compared to five from us. Now by your standards, that means we shouldn't have escaped with a draw let alone a win. But anyone who actually watched the game knows that Liverpool didn't actually created any real chances and thus it was a deserved victory.

I think we're done here.

Yes, I think so too.

[DelboyVilla]

 

 

Just because somebody doesn't have the same criticisms as you doesn't mean they're "burying their heads in the sand".

 

 

Well just the same as someone who critises Lambert is not 'pathetic, boring or a hater'? Plus people who critise cannot be a fan apparently?

 

And apparently you don't need the ball or have to shoot on target to win games? Yes we can all act like idiots and make stupid statements it's really easy!

 

Who has actually said this?

 

 

 

You missed the point I was making that certain people make stupid comments to justify the excuses.

[Mantis]

 

 

 

Just because somebody doesn't have the same criticisms as you doesn't mean they're "burying their heads in the sand".

 

 

Well just the same as someone who critises Lambert is not 'pathetic, boring or a hater'? Plus people who critise cannot be a fan apparently?

 

And apparently you don't need the ball or have to shoot on target to win games? Yes we can all act like idiots and make stupid statements it's really easy!

 

Who has actually said this?

 

 

 

You missed the point I was making that certain people make stupid comments to justify the excuses.

 

No one has made comments even close to that though.

[bobzy]

 

Err...we were going by YOUR reasoning. The reasoning that says that any shot should be considered a chance.

 

 

Please quote where I said this, thanks.

[Isa]

Err...we were going by YOUR reasoning. The reasoning that says that any shot should be considered a chance.

 

Please quote where I said this, thanks.

It was implied here.

Chelsea had 30 shots against Swansea and 27 against Leicester compared to 17 against us.  The lesser deficits could well have been much, much higher.  Such is football sometimes.

And as has been shown with the Liverpool example, this point is fundamentally flawed.

[bobzy]

It's not implied there at all.  It says the deficits could have been much, much higher - such is football sometimes.  It was in response to your "look at the closer scorelines from giving it a go" post; just saying that in either case the deficits could be different - that's football.

 

I've even been posting around the same time saying that possession/shots are meaningless statistics other than indicating which way a game is going, so can only assume you're deliberately being awkward?

[Isa]

Not as awkward as you, evidently. You say that you believe shot stats to be meaningless yet used the fact that Chelsea had more shots against those two teams to suggest the deficits in those games could've been higher. My point was that since the amount of shots means little in way of actual chances, it's pretty pointless using them to argue that point.

[bobzy]

Not as awkward as you, evidently. You say that you believe shot stats to be meaningless yet used the fact that Chelsea had more shots against those two teams to suggest the deficits in those games could've been higher. My point was that since the amount of shots means little in way of actual chances, it's pretty pointless using them to argue that point.

 

So we agree on the same thing; more shots does not necessarily = more goals in the same way that having a go does not necessarily = lesser deficit.  Glad we managed to have so many posts to clarify this.

[Isa]

 

So we agree on the same thing; more shots does not necessarily = more goals in the same way that having a go does not necessarily = lesser deficit.  Glad we managed to have so many posts to clarify this.

Indeed and of course that was never claimed. Lambert's McLeish-esque approach to that game was being defended on the basis that we didn't want to go there and lose heavily (which we pretty much did anyway) and I was merely drawing attention to the fact that other teams went there with some more ambition and themselves were not beaten heavily. So in the end it seems to be a case of you missing the context of my original point.

Oh well, I've been guilty of the same before to be fair.

[Ginko]

 

stats dont alway tell the whole story, but generally if you have more of the ball, create more chances and take more shots you are going to score more goals and get more points. we are very poor in all of those departments.

 

and even if you ignore our terrible stats, you only need to watch us to know we play terrible football under lambert, and have done for the majority of his time here.

 

sit back, work hard closing down and then hope to nick 1 or 2 on the break (or hope benteke does something amazing and creates something for himself). I have seen nothing in his time here that makes me think he is able to get us to play good, attacking football consistently, or even that he wants us to.

 

and good attacking football doesnt mean that you have to sacrifice solidity and open yourselves up to having 5 or 6 stuck past you. plenty of other teams manage to get the balance right.

 

But for the time being, with a weak squad, why does it need to be anything more than this?  The football only needs to be able to be effective, not pretty.  I agree that we should be more of an attacking unit (we simply won't win games otherwise) but I think it'll be better once Benteke is back - we've missed him a ridiculous amount.

 

Jose Mourinho, with all the riches in the world, plays a defensive-based game.  If you don't conceed many, you don't lose many.  We're not Chelsea, we don't have the money of Chelsea, but the strategy is completely valid.

 

Joyful, expansive, attacking football is a dream scenario.  Grinding out or snatching wins/draws to enable us to stay in the league is the reality.  Hopefully we can progress towards the former - for now, I'll take the latter.

 

 

He didn't say joyful, expansive, attacking football, he said good attacking football, but the point I think he was trying to make is that we need to improve in the possession and chance creating departments.

 

There are degrees in between the way we play now and the way Chelsea play. There are teams with arguably worse squad than ours that have more possession and create more chances every game than we do. We have a more solid back line this season than the last few years but they can't be expected to keep clean sheets week in week out and even if they did we'd still draw most games.

 

Having more attacking threat isn't a pipe dream that only the top clubs can afford to do, we just need the right players and, more importantly, the right manager and coaches that can implement that play-style. Lambert isn't that man for me, he's had enough chances now and it just doesn't look like it's going to happen under him.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Ginko

[TRO]

Why is it when some fundamentals in our game are missing and some posters resort to quoting a lack of quality/ millions on transfers as the reason.

We all know that the more you spend the more likely it is to secure the necessary skills.....but there has been plenty of pigs in pokes over the years, just like there has been some fantastic bargains.

You still have to aspire to the philosophy that will take you places.

The more we try to sign players that are comfortable on the ball....the more likely it is for those kind of players will want to come.

We still have some of our players that do represent low capability with the ball....this puts so much pressure on the other players and also encourages poor decision making, just to get rid of the ball.

Edited October 8, 2014 by TRO

[bobzy]

He didn't say joyful, expansive, attacking football, he said good attacking football, but the point I think he was trying to make is that we need to improve in the possession and chance creating departments.

 

There are degrees in between the way we play now and the way Chelsea play. There are teams with arguably worse squad than ours that have more possession and create more chances every game than we do. We have a more solid back line this season than the last few years but they can't be expected to keep clean sheets week in week out and even if they did we'd still draw most games.

 

Having more attacking threat isn't a pipe dream that only the top clubs can afford to do, we just need the right players and, more importantly, the right manager and coaches that can implement that play-style. Lambert isn't that man for me, he's had enough chances now and it just doesn't look like it's going to happen under him.

 

 

I wasn't putting words in andym's mouth r.e: joyful, expansive football - just highlighting that that's a dream.  We should definitely create more chances and that's probably our biggest failing right now.  Possession really doesn't worry we; we have a fairly pacy attacking outlet so breaking/attacking quickly (and hopefully creating) is likely to mean a sacrifice on possession because we don't build up play slowly.  Our biggest concern of the last 2 seasons (arguably?) has been having a leaky defence - it wouldn't be the greatest shock in the world if this is the area we've looked to improve on the most.

 

An attacking play style is more a subjective 'want' than a necessity in matches.  Plenty of teams build on a solid defence and counter attacking - perhaps we lack the quality to do this, perhaps we've missed having a main focal point up top with Benteke injured.  Lambert has reportedly "gone in" for attacking midfielders recently (certainly with Hoolahan) but, likely due to stringent financial controls, we haven't purchased this kind of player.  This may well be the reason we signed Joe Cole on a free?

 

I don't accept that it's simply something we overlook or something that Lambert doesn't want.  His Norwich side scored the most goals in League One when they won the league (89), the most goals in the Championship when they came 2nd (83) and the most goals of any side outside the top 6 in the Premier League (52) in their first season.  But apparently he doesn't have the capability to achieve this?  Bollocks, to be quite frank.

[TRO]

I'm certainly not complaining about focussing on our defence....I'm an advocate of build from the back.

But even if you rely on smash and grab the offensive player must have the ability to bring the ball under control, other wise the rare raids dissipate in to nothing.

There has been evidence of late where players have made wrong choices in passing and balls have been lost to lack of control....this can be paying attention and application......we can't keep sweeping it under the carpet as que sera sera.

It's not a case of slagging off the manager....it's a case of identifying, we have a long way to go, despite enjoying the scalps along the way.

[AntrimBlack]

To be honest, I scanned through the last number of posts on statistics, as it was not really getting anywhere. 

I think that statistics can often be interpreted to prove the particular point someone wants to make, and are sometimes even misleading .

There are no nuances with statistics, and when you watch the match your own opinion as to the style of play and its' effectiveness, I think, is often a better yardstick than the statistics, which, though useful, often do not really reflect what you have seen.

[AshVillain]

I don't agree with a lot of the criticism on here about Lambert's tactics. Fairly short sighted and based on the last few games it seems, especially when it comes to tactical choices.

 

Perhaps a quick reminder of the stats against Hull (our last game not against the top 4 from last year) is required? I could link it, but it shows 45-55% of the ball (AVFC-HCFC) more shots, and shots on target for us than Hull.

 

Seems to me that we have defensive plans for the 'better' teams, or teams that play the ball well - but when we are playing against teams that don't carry so much of a threat, this year (so far), we have come out and played football further up the field and not sat back. I have watched this happen on a few occasions this year, and I think it will happen more.

[Isa]

I don't agree with a lot of the criticism on here about Lambert's tactics. Fairly short sighted and based on the last few games it seems, especially when it comes to tactical choices.

Almost as short-sighted as forgetting that last season ever happened and that the football has improved because we had one good half against Hull.