Paul Lambert

[Brumstopdogs]

What you probably mean is that his team has been losing a bit lately, and hasn't scored many goals.

 

I've never been able to identify the "plan" or "ethos" of any football team, and judging by how few football commentators talk about such things, I'm a bit inclined to think that they're like unicorns.

Losing a bit lately.

 

Try losing most of the time this season.

[maqroll]

Lambert always looks constipated. He's holding on to a big one, and we're in the danger zone

[briny_ear]

What you probably mean is that his team has been losing a bit lately, and hasn't scored many goals.

 

I've never been able to identify the "plan" or "ethos" of any football team, and judging by how few football commentators talk about such things, I'm a bit inclined to think that they're like unicorns.

Losing "a bit" lately???!!!

 

 

I think signatures don't show on all platforms, so in case anyone has missed it, here are some stats that go in my signature.

 

Paul Lambert overall league record: Pl.87 W23 D21 L43 F91-146A GD-55 Pts90; Last 20 matches: Pl.20 W4 D3 L13 F12-39A GD -27 Pts15

 

That's more than losing "a bit"

[ozvillafan]

I've never been able to identify the "plan" or "ethos" of any football team, and judging by how few football commentators talk about such things, I'm a bit inclined to think that they're like unicorns.

 

Really? Even in the footballing backwater that is Australia we have halftime analysis that uses vision from the first half to explain how a team's plan/tactics/style is succeeding (or failing) to breakdown the opposition.

[George Curtis]

This thread is degenerating into what every other Lambert thread has.

The sooner he **** off the better then.

[George Curtis]

No. The thing is that he totally wasn't. Have a read of his thread from the McLeish time, it's not pretty.

It's contextual though. As bad as he was during that season, he never offered the standand of defending that we've become accustomed to from Lowton.

You do Hutton a disservice. I think the standard of defending he offered was nearly as good as Lowton's, it's just that he was useless in every other way.

Total rubbish. Referring to those old threads is just leading anyone to look at the views of sheep. Hutton is, and was, a good full back.

[Mantis]

Hutton was poor in his first season though.

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

I've never been able to identify the "plan" or "ethos" of any football team, and judging by how few football commentators talk about such things, I'm a bit inclined to think that they're like unicorns.

 

Really? Even in the footballing backwater that is Australia we have halftime analysis that uses vision from the first half to explain how a team's plan/tactics/style is succeeding (or failing) to breakdown the opposition.

 

 

Well I live in Sydney, so I watch the same shows, as well as the British ones. You don't hear the word "ethos" very much, and beyond a basic formation and an idea to target certain positions more than others, even the commentators who are paid to fluff on about the course of the game seldom talk about what manager has which plan. Sometimes they have a go at it, because it sounds big and clever, but overall it's 80% bullshit.

 

It comes down to whether you're winning or not: If you are, football experts crawl out of the woodwork to praise your plan, ethos, vision, strategy, etc.as though they know exactly what you're saying to the players and would have done the same thing if they were manager. If you're losing, the only conclusion is that you don't have any of those largely mythical managerial tools. As long as your guy is losing, you can't be proved wrong. If he starts winning, it's "oh, he's somehow improved his plan, ethos, vision, strategy, etc." a win-win situation for the armchair managerial genius.

[DCJonah]

Your posts get worse. You continue to talk to people like they can't match your understanding of the game. And your dismissal of things in your defence of the manager increases by the game.

[penguin]

I've never been able to identify the "plan" or "ethos" of any football team, and judging by how few football commentators talk about such things, I'm a bit inclined to think that they're like unicorns.

 

Really? Even in the footballing backwater that is Australia we have halftime analysis that uses vision from the first half to explain how a team's plan/tactics/style is succeeding (or failing) to breakdown the opposition.

 

Well I live in Sydney, so I watch the same shows, as well as the British ones. You don't hear the word "ethos" very much, and beyond a basic formation and an idea to target certain positions more than others, even the commentators who are paid to fluff on about the course of the game seldom talk about what manager has which plan. Sometimes they have a go at it, because it sounds big and clever, but overall it's 80% bullshit.

 

It comes down to whether you're winning or not: If you are, football experts crawl out of the woodwork to praise your plan, ethos, vision, strategy, etc.as though they know exactly what you're saying to the players and would have done the same thing if they were manager. If you're losing, the only conclusion is that you don't have any of those largely mythical managerial tools. As long as your guy is losing, you can't be proved wrong. If he starts winning, it's "oh, he's somehow improved his plan, ethos, vision, strategy, etc." a win-win situation for the armchair managerial genius.

So because you can't identity it, it doesn't exist and anyone who claims otherwise is bullshitting?

Cool.

[ozvillafan]

Well I live in Sydney, so I watch the same shows, as well as the British ones. You don't hear the word "ethos" very much, and beyond a basic formation and an idea to target certain positions more than others, even the commentators who are paid to fluff on about the course of the game seldom talk about what manager has which plan. Sometimes they have a go at it, because it sounds big and clever, but overall it's 80% bullshit.

 

It comes down to whether you're winning or not: If you are, football experts crawl out of the woodwork to praise your plan, ethos, vision, strategy, etc.as though they know exactly what you're saying to the players and would have done the same thing if they were manager. If you're losing, the only conclusion is that you don't have any of those largely mythical managerial tools. As long as your guy is losing, you can't be proved wrong. If he starts winning, it's "oh, he's somehow improved his plan, ethos, vision, strategy, etc." a win-win situation for the armchair managerial genius.

 

 

Surely you remember the comments made about Gombau by these "experts" when he first took over Adelaide. Even though they were dead last for the first half of that season, the pundits praised the style he was introducing. Fast forward 12 months and they are top of the league and in the cup final.

 

Ever heard anyone say something similar about Lambert at Villa? No, me either.

[DCJonah]

Wigan went down with Martinez but everyone knew the ethos he was trying to build there.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Ever heard anyone say something similar about Lambert at Villa? No, me either.

 

 

Every manager has a honeymoon period, and Lambert was no exception. It's the fact that the results haven't improved that allows his supposed tactical failings to attract criticism. Are the results his fault? I honestly don't know, and neither does anybody else.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Wigan went down with Martinez but everyone knew the ethos he was trying to build there.

 

I didn't. I thought he was a reasonably clever bloke who probably didn't deserve to be criticised for overseeing the relegation of a penniless no-hope club like Wigan, no more.

[CrackpotForeigner]

So because you can't identity it, it doesn't exist and anyone who claims otherwise is bullshitting?

That's more or less my opinion. We are allowed those, aren't we?

[CrackpotForeigner]

Your posts get worse. You continue to talk to people like they can't match your understanding of the game. And your dismissal of things in your defence of the manager increases by the game.

 

Sorry if I'm coming across as someone with more understanding of the game than anyone else, I have an average understanding of the game, like you and probably at least 95% of people posting on here. But at least I understand that we've tried a succession of managers and finally landed one with a spectacular track record. The only thing we haven't really tried is sticking with one, and I would like to do so for once and see where it goes for longer than ten seconds.

[sexbelowsound]

Your posts get worse. You continue to talk to people like they can't match your understanding of the game. And your dismissal of things in your defence of the manager increases by the game.

 

Bit harsh don't you think? I'm sure there are people on here who think you, me and others talk nonsense at times as well but don't feel the need to point it out.

[sheepyvillian]

Nigel Spink thinks we should cut the manager some slack . What makes him think we have'nt ?

[penguin]

So because you can't identity it, it doesn't exist and anyone who claims otherwise is bullshitting?

That's more or less my opinion. We are allowed those, aren't we?

Meow.

[DCJonah]

Your posts get worse. You continue to talk to people like they can't match your understanding of the game. And your dismissal of things in your defence of the manager increases by the game.

Bit harsh don't you think? I'm sure there are people on here who think you, me and others talk nonsense at times as well but don't feel the need to point it out.

I think a lot of us probably talk nonsense a few times. I think that's different than talking down to people as if they aren't capable of understanding the sport like you do.