Paul Lambert

[Grasshopper]

....transfer window open and we wont be signing a new manager nor winning 7-0 in the FA Cup.....

[Raymond]

"Coaching us to be defensive."

We just finished a match with 65% possession and 14 shots to 6. Most of that possession was in the opposing team's half.

There are a lot of ways to not score goals. AM did not score goals because we have 11 behind the ball. We are not scoring goals now because our frontmen could not bury one of the eight attempts we had in the box. Lambert can be blamed for playing those players, but the "style" created real chances.

Also fun that possession, which was so important when we did not have it, no longer is mentioned.

Okay, I'll mention possession.

When we were low on possession we found ourselves under attack by the opposition for huge stretches of the game. Any attempts to retain the ball were squandered by Guzan booting the ball into touch, Guzan booting the ball to Benteke regardless of whether he was free or not, or defenders passing to KEA and him passing to one of the ball boys. This meant that we were under pressure for absolutely ages, resulting in Guzan being pelted with shots, which proved that (1) Guzan was a really good keeper and (2) even a really good keeper will be beaten if he's asked to make saves enough times. People called for more possession because it meant that we would be under less pressure and hopefully we'd concede fewer goals.

Now we have more possession and oh look, it means that we're conceding fewer goals. Our defense has been rightly praised for their improvement this season, but it stands to reason that if any defense is spending more time passing the ball and less time having to make last ditch tackles then their defensive stats will show improvement, so in that regard those who called for higher possession were proven to be correct.

The problem now is that all that extra possession is not translating to extra goals. In fact, the reduction in our long-ball game has, I think, meant that our attacking threat is now lower than when we were booting the ball straight to Benteke. The reason that teams like Arsenal and Swansea have made a success of their high-possession, intricate-passing game is that their off-the-ball movement is far better than ours, Weimann makes runs but does so when there's no pass on, and Gabby and Benteke have been largely stationary for the last few games. Compare our movement to Swansea's and you'll notice a significant difference.

Now, do we consider that Swansea's players are significantly better than ours? Because I don't, not significantly. Assuming that you agree on that point, the next question is: why do our players lack movement? And you know what? I don't know the answer. Is it due to formation? Is it due to lack of confidence? Is it a lack of communication? Is there a problem with the coaching? I don't know.

What I do know is that all of the things above are things that fall under the responsibility of the manager. It is his job to set the formation, to tell the players how he wants them to play, to set up a coaching regime that supports the play style he wants to create and encourages better communication from his players. He can't kick the ball for the players, he can't force them to score goals, but God knows he can sit in the dressing room with them and tell them that their movement is poor and why he thinks that is.

You point to the stats in the last game and mention that much of the possession was in the opposition half. That's correct, but that's because they set up in two defensive rows in front of goal and allowed us possession because their manager had seen the way we'd performed in previous games and made a tactical decision that we'd be unable to break that defence down. That's the sort of thing that falls under a manager's remit, and that the sort of thing that Lambert - rightly - gets criticism for.

Was it also their intent to allow us 8 shots inside the box?

I agree the movement is poor, but that is not "setting up to be defensive." That is our players not having the football intelligence to consistently make the correct runs and Lambert not doing a good enough job A. Instructing players where to be and B. Finding players with the cutting edge we need.

That said, this is a relatively new system, and we created more chances against Palace than we had in previous matches. This system has more potential than the behind the ball, counter system we were playing early in the season, and the shift in style has given me more hope than I have had in quite some time.

[weedman]

OK, I don't post often but thought I'd weight in with my thoughts here. (its long, so bear with me!)

We have clearly just completely changed our style of play. We have gone from a very defensive, smash and grab 'style' to a possession based game. Our old style, while painful to watch has kept us in the league for the last couple of years, despite massive cost cutting and very little in the way of transfer spending. Our new style is, at the moment, equally painful to watch - we are having huge amounts of possession with very little end product - and obviously our "goals for" column is shocking.

A defensive, smash and grab tactic will always leave you near the bottom, and should only be used by teams that are weak and struggling, as we have been. The next step is a direct counter attacking team, where you need slightly better players. We combined these two tactics depending on who we were playing. The direct counter attack is a decent system, but has a ceiling, the best you can realistically get to would be us under MON/Everton's kind of level. Big Sam is playing the exact same way with West Ham as we did with MON, with similar results (this, incidentally is the only system where playing with wingers works, pace for counter attacking and a good cross, they don't fit into other styles). The possession based game is difficult, as you do need some much better players to make it work, but it has no real ceiling, play this way and you could finish either 20th in the league or 1st.

Its a more risky system, do it wrong and you wont score goals or win games (see - us now), but do it right and you can fly up the table (see - Southampton) - it is the only way to play if we are to have any chance at all to progress. Look at the difference when Houllier came in, it took all season for the players to get used to it then it all went out the window when he left, now we are only just starting all over again.

The players are adapting to this system, and that will take time. It's as if we have just changed manager and are now in our transitional period, only we've done it without the hassle of sorting out compensation for a sacked manager. I firmly believe that this new way of playing will reap rewards for us, despite the lack of goals we are creating more chances than we have done previously, and with more consistency. As we play this way more and more players will start playing differently, at the moment its all about keeping the ball, so the players are going for the safe easy pass every time. As they adapt they'll try more risky passes more often, while still maintaining a decent possession percentage. They'll try shooting from outside the box. The attacking players will start moving expecting a pass rather than waiting for a pass before moving - it sounds simple, but the players brains have to be retrained until these things (things they didn't do previously because the style of football didn't call for it) become natural to them. When the window opens (or when Mr Lerner kindly allows us to spend some of that TV money) I'm sure we'll be looking at bringing in players who more suit this style, rather than the old one.

I was firmly in a Lambert out position, there was no improvement in the football or the results (bar the odd point) but now I want him to stay, I can see improvement. Perhaps if you only look at the result then there is none, but the last two years I've watched 90% of most games expecting us to concede a goal at any moment, and for the most part genuinely surprised when we scored one or even won a game. The last few games haven't been thrillers by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't find myself expecting us to concede a goal every time the opposition have the ball. Despite our horrific goalscoring record (which, just to note, was horrific this season long before we changed our style), I actually am expecting us to get chances. We have also been pretty unlucky with some pretty harsh red cards against pretty defensive teams in our recent games that have not helped in implementing our new style

A manager is important, but they can only work with what's in front of them, Alex Ferguson couldn't get us into the Champions League right now, for example. I'd say a good manager could probably get a team 4 or 5 places higher than they should be with the right tactics and time to adapt. So for a team such as ourselves I'd expect a very good manager could probably get us as high as say, 7th or 8th with a bit of luck. On the flip side, the complete opposite is true of a bad manager, they could definitely get us to finish 4 or 5 places lower in the league than we might expect, which could be as low as 19th or 20th with a bit of bad luck. We are currently 12th, and I'd say the only team below us that has a better first team would be Everton, the rest our players are better or comparable overall, and the only team above us I think that we could claim to be better than would be Stoke - so in my eyes our position in the table, ignoring performances, pretty accurately reflects the quality of our players - given that many teams have outspent us in recent windows, credit has to go to Lambert for getting a team together that could realistically consider itself to be the 12th best team in the league. (Although no-one really disputes that he has been good in the transfer window)

Is it acceptable that its taken Lambert over 2 years to figure out we needed to change? Of course not

Could sacking Lambert and bringing in somebody better improve us? I believe it definitely could, although managers are a mixed bag, and while changing could get us an extra few places in the league, it could also see us relegated. Given that we have actually started playing some more progressive football of late, and have a manager that is good at picking up players on our non existent transfer budget, I think it would be foolish to risk it

It's easy to look at Lamberts entire reign and want a change, I did for a long time, but we are changing and part of bringing in a more up and coming manager is accepting that they will mess up every now and then, but hopefully will learn and adapt as they go - at the moment Lambert seems to be doing this. OK, it has taken WAY too long for him to do it, but it is happening. I think he is on the brink of becoming a pretty decent manager and I'd rather look forward than backwards. We sack him now and the next team will get all the benefits from our struggles, we'll see none. I want to support someone who, despite being pretty rubbish, has got the job done. Someone that has supported us when a lot of other managers would have walked given the constraints. And, most importantly, someone who has shown signs that they are getting better, someone who is showing us that they aren't old timers stuck in their ways but young (relatively speaking) managers who are prepared to adapt - managers that are willing to change their style are a VERY rare breed

Paul Lambert certainly isn't perfect, he's no messiah - and if Jose Mourinho wanted to come and manage us I'd sack Lambert and get him in immediately - the odds of that happening are slim, so be careful what you wish for - Ole Gunnar Sol...(no idea how to spell the rest) hasn't turned out to be the managerial gem everyone thought. No manager carries guarantees, no manager we could attract at least, and certainly not for anything more than mid table mediocrity, which is exactly where we are now anyway so why waste the compensation when we could get a player instead?

Sorry this is so long and if you've read this far...for God's sake get a life!

Edited January 4, 2015 by weedman

[CrackpotForeigner]

if you've read this far...for God's sake get a life!

 

**** you

[DCJonah]

An interesting read Weedman and you do raise some good points.  A few I disagreed with.

 

 

 

 The players are adapting to this system, and that will take time. It's as if we have just changed manager and are now in our transitional period, only we've done it without the hassle of sorting out compensation for a sacked manager.

 

I think you've exaggerated this a lot.  It's really not like changing a manager and having a transitional period.  At the end of the day all he's asked premier league footballers to do is pass the ball to each other, rather than kick it long.  

 

 

 

 

I firmly believe that this new way of playing will reap rewards for us, despite the lack of goals we are creating more chances than we have done previously, and with more consistency

 

 

We still are bottom of the table in terms of shots per game.  We've played this way for the last 9 games and i'd say burnley and leicester were the only two where I felt we created lots of good chances.

 

 

 

 

As they adapt they'll try more risky passes more often, while still maintaining a decent possession percentage. They'll try shooting from outside the box. The attacking players will start moving expecting a pass rather than waiting for a pass before moving - it sounds simple, but the players brains have to be retrained until these things (things they didn't do previously because the style of football didn't call for it) become natural to them. When the window opens (or when Mr Lerner kindly allows us to spend some of that TV money) I'm sure we'll be looking at bringing in players who more suit this style, rather than the old one.

 

 

You do make it sound like these aren't very good players.  Again we're talking about passing the ball to each other.  Surely Benteke has experience playing this way when on international training.  Cleverley played the same way at manchester united and Sanchez looks more than capable of playing this type of football.  The movement and the attacking passages of play surely have to be worked on at the training ground, is lambert capable or doing enough in this area? We know he wasn't someone who did much when it came to training last year.  Is he the sort of manager who can do this?

 

 

 

 

A manager is important, but they can only work with what's in front of them, Alex Ferguson couldn't get us into the Champions League right now, for example. I'd say a good manager could probably get a team 4 or 5 places higher than they should be with the right tactics and time to adapt. So for a team such as ourselves I'd expect a very good manager could probably get us as high as say, 7th or 8th with a bit of luck. On the flip side, the complete opposite is true of a bad manager, they could definitely get us to finish 4 or 5 places lower in the league than we might expect, which could be as low as 19th or 20th with a bit of bad luck. We are currently 12th, and I'd say the only team below us that has a better first team would be Everton, the rest our players are better or comparable overall, and the only team above us I think that we could claim to be better than would be Stoke - so in my eyes our position in the table, ignoring performances, pretty accurately reflects the quality of our players - given that many teams have outspent us in recent windows, credit has to go to Lambert for getting a team together that could realistically consider itself to be the 12th best team in the league. (Although no-one really disputes that he has been good in the transfer window)

 

 

Like last year I think league position at this point in the season can be a little deceiving.  We're on course for around 42 points which i'd imagine will see us finish around 14th/15th in the league.  TBH though I think that could drop.  Looking at the next 4 games I think we could well be on 24 points after 24 games and I think we'll probably end up with 40 points this season.

 

 

 

 Is it acceptable that its taken Lambert over 2 years to figure out we needed to change? Of course not

Could sacking Lambert and bringing in somebody better improve us? I believe it definitely could, although managers are a mixed bag, and while changing could get us an extra few places in the league, it could also see us relegated. Given that we have actually started playing some more progressive football of late, and have a manager that is good at picking up players on our non existent transfer budget, I think it would be foolish to risk it

 

Strongly disagree.  I don't think we should stick with such a poor return on the slight chance that a new manager would do worse.  We have a decent squad, a solid defensive unit and Tom Fox saying all the right things.  There's not a chance of it happening but I think we'd be better off with a new manager.

 

 

 

 Someone that has supported us when a lot of other managers would have walked given the constraints. And, most importantly, someone who has shown signs that they are getting better, someone who is showing us that they aren't old timers stuck in their ways but young (relatively speaking) managers who are prepared to adapt - managers that are willing to change their style are a VERY rare breed

 

The man is not stupid, he's not going to potentially ruin his career and reputation to work for an owner who doesn't want to be here and is making him work under tight financial constraints.  He jumped on that new deal because i'm sure he's aware that getting a job at a club like ours would probably be very unlikely for him.  We've passed the ball for 9 games after 2 and half years.  I think it's a bit early to talk about Lambert being on of these VERY rare breeds.  Could it also not be that a lot of managers don't change because they have success with the way they play.  The fact it's got to this point before he decided to try a different approach gives me little faith that he actually is a rare manager who adapts to different situations.

 

 

 

 

Paul Lambert certainly isn't perfect, he's no messiah - and if Jose Mourinho wanted to come and manage us I'd sack Lambert and get him in immediately - the odds of that happening are slim, so be careful what you wish for - Ole Gunnar Sol...(no idea how to spell the rest) hasn't turned out to be the managerial gem everyone thought. No manager carries guarantees, no manager we could attract at least, and certainly not for anything more than mid table mediocrity, which is exactly where we are now anyway so why waste the compensation when we could get a player instead?

 

 

Because midtable mediocrity is not achieved yet.  Two relegation battles, 2 joint lowest points totals in prem history and lots of other negative records broke.  If we were a team finishing comfortably mid table then i might agree with this but we certainly haven't achieved that yet and if i'm honest i can't see it happening this season.

Edited January 4, 2015 by DCJonah

[Shaw_nuff]

Firstly let me say that it's good to see us keep the ball more. It's essential if we're to not get knackered and stay up.

 

But all the evidence for me points to a reactionary manager. Everyone (and by that I mean all the pundits, journos, statisticians and most fans) have been pointing out the dire possession percentage for ages. Lambert would have to have locked himself in a dark room between matches to not notice this. 

 

And then, not at the start but a quarter way through a season, after everyone else is pointing and laughing at us we suddenly change philosophy???

 

Some people may think this has been planned all along but I don't buy it. There's nothing organic about how this has been achieved, it's just been dropped in from a great height.

 

The result is you get players who aren't used to the style because they've been playing route one for two years. Why not do this right from the start of the season/pre-season?

 

Just like the about-turn on 'young and hungry', there's no steady progression, just a complete u-turn.

 

I hope it bears fruit and does enough to keep us up, but don't be surprised if we revert to kick and rush if our movement doesn't/can't improve.

[Djemba_Villan]

He probably wanted to wait till we had a reasonable number of points before switching philosophy. Imagine the outcry if these current teething issues occured 3-4 games in.

[bobzy]

He probably wanted to wait till we had a reasonable number of points before switching philosophy. Imagine the outcry if these current teething issues occured 3-4 games in.

 

If he changes style, he's wrong.  If he doesn't, he's wrong.

If he sticks with young and hungry, he's wrong.  If he signs experienced players, he's wrong.

Edited January 4, 2015 by bobzy

[DCJonah]

If there's no progression or improvement he's wrong. That's the issue.

He takes too long to react, waiting till things get to close to rock bottom.

When his decisions lead to proper improvement then he'll be right.

[sexbelowsound]

If there's no progression or improvement he's wrong. That's the issue.

He takes too long to react, waiting till things get to close to rock bottom.

When his decisions lead to proper improvement then he'll be right.

 

Proper improvement? Isn't the issue that you have your own parameters for what constitutes as progression that differs to others.

[ozvillafan]

He probably wanted to wait till we had a reasonable number of points before switching philosophy. Imagine the outcry if these current teething issues occured 3-4 games in.

 

Surely that is what preseason is for, rather than 3-4 games in?

 

After a good start he probably lulled himself into thinking there was not much wrong with our football. Almost half a season later he's woken up to reality and implemented a sudden change to possession football. It's not surprising that we are struggling with the movement and tempo required to make it work.....

 

... but I have no confidence that it will change soon enough (if at all) under Lambert's guidance.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

OK, I don't post often but thought I'd weight in with my thoughts here. (its long, so bear with me!)

We have clearly just completely changed our style of play. We have gone from a very defensive, smash and grab 'style' to a possession based game. Our old style, while painful to watch has kept us in the league for the last couple of years, despite massive cost cutting and very little in the way of transfer spending. Our new style is, at the moment, equally painful to watch - we are having huge amounts of possession with very little end product - and obviously our "goals for" column is shocking.

A defensive, smash and grab tactic will always leave you near the bottom, and should only be used by teams that are weak and struggling, as we have been. The next step is a direct counter attacking team, where you need slightly better players. We combined these two tactics depending on who we were playing. The direct counter attack is a decent system, but has a ceiling, the best you can realistically get to would be us under MON/Everton's kind of level. Big Sam is playing the exact same way with West Ham as we did with MON, with similar results (this, incidentally is the only system where playing with wingers works, pace for counter attacking and a good cross, they don't fit into other styles). The possession based game is difficult, as you do need some much better players to make it work, but it has no real ceiling, play this way and you could finish either 20th in the league or 1st.

Its a more risky system, do it wrong and you wont score goals or win games (see - us now), but do it right and you can fly up the table (see - Southampton) - it is the only way to play if we are to have any chance at all to progress. Look at the difference when Houllier came in, it took all season for the players to get used to it then it all went out the window when he left, now we are only just starting all over again.

The players are adapting to this system, and that will take time. It's as if we have just changed manager and are now in our transitional period, only we've done it without the hassle of sorting out compensation for a sacked manager. I firmly believe that this new way of playing will reap rewards for us, despite the lack of goals we are creating more chances than we have done previously, and with more consistency. As we play this way more and more players will start playing differently, at the moment its all about keeping the ball, so the players are going for the safe easy pass every time. As they adapt they'll try more risky passes more often, while still maintaining a decent possession percentage. They'll try shooting from outside the box. The attacking players will start moving expecting a pass rather than waiting for a pass before moving - it sounds simple, but the players brains have to be retrained until these things (things they didn't do previously because the style of football didn't call for it) become natural to them. When the window opens (or when Mr Lerner kindly allows us to spend some of that TV money) I'm sure we'll be looking at bringing in players who more suit this style, rather than the old one.

I was firmly in a Lambert out position, there was no improvement in the football or the results (bar the odd point) but now I want him to stay, I can see improvement. Perhaps if you only look at the result then there is none, but the last two years I've watched 90% of most games expecting us to concede a goal at any moment, and for the most part genuinely surprised when we scored one or even won a game. The last few games haven't been thrillers by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't find myself expecting us to concede a goal every time the opposition have the ball. Despite our horrific goalscoring record (which, just to note, was horrific this season long before we changed our style), I actually am expecting us to get chances. We have also been pretty unlucky with some pretty harsh red cards against pretty defensive teams in our recent games that have not helped in implementing our new style

A manager is important, but they can only work with what's in front of them, Alex Ferguson couldn't get us into the Champions League right now, for example. I'd say a good manager could probably get a team 4 or 5 places higher than they should be with the right tactics and time to adapt. So for a team such as ourselves I'd expect a very good manager could probably get us as high as say, 7th or 8th with a bit of luck. On the flip side, the complete opposite is true of a bad manager, they could definitely get us to finish 4 or 5 places lower in the league than we might expect, which could be as low as 19th or 20th with a bit of bad luck. We are currently 12th, and I'd say the only team below us that has a better first team would be Everton, the rest our players are better or comparable overall, and the only team above us I think that we could claim to be better than would be Stoke - so in my eyes our position in the table, ignoring performances, pretty accurately reflects the quality of our players - given that many teams have outspent us in recent windows, credit has to go to Lambert for getting a team together that could realistically consider itself to be the 12th best team in the league. (Although no-one really disputes that he has been good in the transfer window)

Is it acceptable that its taken Lambert over 2 years to figure out we needed to change? Of course not

Could sacking Lambert and bringing in somebody better improve us? I believe it definitely could, although managers are a mixed bag, and while changing could get us an extra few places in the league, it could also see us relegated. Given that we have actually started playing some more progressive football of late, and have a manager that is good at picking up players on our non existent transfer budget, I think it would be foolish to risk it

It's easy to look at Lamberts entire reign and want a change, I did for a long time, but we are changing and part of bringing in a more up and coming manager is accepting that they will mess up every now and then, but hopefully will learn and adapt as they go - at the moment Lambert seems to be doing this. OK, it has taken WAY too long for him to do it, but it is happening. I think he is on the brink of becoming a pretty decent manager and I'd rather look forward than backwards. We sack him now and the next team will get all the benefits from our struggles, we'll see none. I want to support someone who, despite being pretty rubbish, has got the job done. Someone that has supported us when a lot of other managers would have walked given the constraints. And, most importantly, someone who has shown signs that they are getting better, someone who is showing us that they aren't old timers stuck in their ways but young (relatively speaking) managers who are prepared to adapt - managers that are willing to change their style are a VERY rare breed

Paul Lambert certainly isn't perfect, he's no messiah - and if Jose Mourinho wanted to come and manage us I'd sack Lambert and get him in immediately - the odds of that happening are slim, so be careful what you wish for - Ole Gunnar Sol...(no idea how to spell the rest) hasn't turned out to be the managerial gem everyone thought. No manager carries guarantees, no manager we could attract at least, and certainly not for anything more than mid table mediocrity, which is exactly where we are now anyway so why waste the compensation when we could get a player instead?

Sorry this is so long and if you've read this far...for God's sake get a life!

[Villanun]

A whole bunch of stuff...

Was it also their intent to allow us 8 shots inside the box?

I agree the movement is poor, but that is not "setting up to be defensive." That is our players not having the football intelligence to consistently make the correct runs and Lambert not doing a good enough job A. Instructing players where to be and B. Finding players with the cutting edge we need.

That said, this is a relatively new system, and we created more chances against Palace than we had in previous matches. This system has more potential than the behind the ball, counter system we were playing early in the season, and the shift in style has given me more hope than I have had in quite some time.

You'll have to forgive me because my memory is notoriously poor, but at least some of those shots were pinged against the legs of opposition defenders, were they not? Looking at the stats, 14 shots to 6 makes the match look very one-sided, but it doesn't show the fact that they were set up entirely to hit us on the counter - or that they came the closest to scoring.

I don't think that Lambert has set us up to be defensive, I think he's set us up to be More defensive than we were. I agree that the emphasis is firmly on the players to make attacking runs and move off the ball, and the lack of footballing intelligence in our side is something I've lamented before, but as you say Lambert takes responsibility for poor instruction.

I hope this new style beds in, but it won't change one of my fundamental concerns about Lambert, which is that he seems very inflexible. People on this forum have been advocating a different playing style for ages, but it apparently took a visit to Pep Guardiola for him to realise the same thing. I think we fundamentally agree about the shift in styles, though.

[DCJonah]

If there's no progression or improvement he's wrong. That's the issue.

He takes too long to react, waiting till things get to close to rock bottom.

When his decisions lead to proper improvement then he'll be right.

Proper improvement? Isn't the issue that you have your own parameters for what constitutes as progression that differs to others.

I'm using points, league position and points per game. The things the sport is based on. What do you suggest we use to judge progress and improvement?

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

If there's no progression or improvement he's wrong. That's the issue.

He takes too long to react, waiting till things get to close to rock bottom.

When his decisions lead to proper improvement then he'll be right.

Proper improvement? Isn't the issue that you have your own parameters for what constitutes as progression that differs to others.

I'm using points, league position and points per game. The things the sport is based on. What do you suggest we use to judge progress and improvement?

 

 

The difference is I will look at all aspects of the game for progress, which there clearly is evidence of. You talk about the football being poor but teams have accumulated many points and decent league positions playing poor football so using just points and league position as a sign of progress is far to simplistic for me.

 

I understand that its what a league is based on but what happens for example if we change our style of play which is appealing to the masses but it takes time to implement and we accumulate less points than last season? Does that mean no progress in the playing style has happened?

Edited January 4, 2015 by sexbelowsound

[DCJonah]

If there's no progression or improvement he's wrong. That's the issue.

He takes too long to react, waiting till things get to close to rock bottom.

When his decisions lead to proper improvement then he'll be right.

Proper improvement? Isn't the issue that you have your own parameters for what constitutes as progression that differs to others.

I'm using points, league position and points per game. The things the sport is based on. What do you suggest we use to judge progress and improvement?

The difference is I will look at all aspects of the game for progress, which there clearly is evidence of. You talk about the football being poor but teams have accumulated many points and decent league positions playing poor football so using just points and league position as a sign of progress is far to simplistic for me.

I understand that its what a league is based on but what happens for example if we change our style of play which is appealing to the masses but it takes time to implement and we accumulate less points than last season? Does that mean no progress in the playing style has happened?

We all look at all aspects but getting points is what it's all about.

Clearly our ability to keep the ball has improved along with the defence. But then to balance it out the attack has got significantly worse and the end result is pretty much the same as its always been under Lambert.

If you want to cling on to the odd stat to somehow justify progress then you of course can. But the final result has so far shown no improvement.

In regards to your final question, if we finish with less than 38 points that would be our lowest premiership points total. Would you argue he's progressed or improved if we manage that? I would say that's definite lack of any progress and would indicate that we're going backwards, regardless of how much the midfield and defence pass to each other.

[foreveryoung]

 

 

 

If there's no progression or improvement he's wrong. That's the issue.

He takes too long to react, waiting till things get to close to rock bottom.

When his decisions lead to proper improvement then he'll be right.

Proper improvement? Isn't the issue that you have your own parameters for what constitutes as progression that differs to others.

I'm using points, league position and points per game. The things the sport is based on. What do you suggest we use to judge progress and improvement?

 

 

The difference is I will look at all aspects of the game for progress, which there clearly is evidence of. You talk about the football being poor but teams have accumulated many points and decent league positions playing poor football so using just points and league position as a sign of progress is far to simplistic for me.

 

I understand that its what a league is based on but what happens for example if we change our style of play which is appealing to the masses but it takes time to implement and we accumulate less points than last season? Does that mean no progress in the playing style has happened?

 

If you know Villa and Lambert as we do, you will stop being so deluded into thinking we will be a comfortable midtable team this season. There is no doubt even now we are relegation fodder yet again, an by the time we have played our next 4-5 games we will be down there with the worst of them, believe me!

We have had our chance to pull away with playing Palace, Sunderland etc, though yet again under Lambert we have mugged it and failed to take advantage of the easy fixtures. 

Results and league positon are what matter the most, why we can't get a balance between playing half decent football while picking up reasonable results has always been one of the wonders of managment under Lambert!

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

 

If there's no progression or improvement he's wrong. That's the issue.

He takes too long to react, waiting till things get to close to rock bottom.

When his decisions lead to proper improvement then he'll be right.

Proper improvement? Isn't the issue that you have your own parameters for what constitutes as progression that differs to others.

I'm using points, league position and points per game. The things the sport is based on. What do you suggest we use to judge progress and improvement?

The difference is I will look at all aspects of the game for progress, which there clearly is evidence of. You talk about the football being poor but teams have accumulated many points and decent league positions playing poor football so using just points and league position as a sign of progress is far to simplistic for me.

I understand that its what a league is based on but what happens for example if we change our style of play which is appealing to the masses but it takes time to implement and we accumulate less points than last season? Does that mean no progress in the playing style has happened?

We all look at all aspects but getting points is what it's all about.

Clearly our ability to keep the ball has improved along with the defence. But then to balance it out the attack has got significantly worse and the end result is pretty much the same as its always been under Lambert.

If you want to cling on to the odd stat to somehow justify progress then you of course can. But the final result has so far shown no improvement.

In regards to your final question, if we finish with less than 38 points that would be our lowest premiership points total. Would you argue he's progressed or improved if we manage that? I would say that's definite lack of any progress and would indicate that we're going backwards, regardless of how much the midfield and defence pass to each other.

 

 

That isn't what I asked though. Let me rephrase it, based on your points logic, If we developed a style of play, lets say similar to Swansea, that is appealing to the masses but it took time to implement and we had a few rocky performances along the way and ended up on less points than we have done previously. Would you say no progress to the playing style has been made? 

Edited January 4, 2015 by sexbelowsound

[bobzy]

 

That isn't what I asked though. Let me rephrase it, based on your points logic, If we developed a style of play, lets say similar to Swansea, that is appealing to the masses but it took time to implement and we had a few rocky performances along the way and ended up on less points than we have done previously. Would you say no progress to the playing style has been made? 

 

 

I should imagine you could say that improvement on playing style has happened but to the detriment of overall improvement.  Results are what matters at the end of the day.

[Villanun]

If he sticks with young and hungry, he's wrong.  If he signs experienced players, he's wrong.

Yeah but nobody's said that, have they? People were decrying young and hungry and crying out for more experience, and I haven't seen anyone say that they want young and hungry back.

The problem with the abandonment of young and hungry is that it was Lambert's policy. After all, he built his reputation at Norwich by creating a successful team out of cheap young players. Couple that with an owner looking to reduce costs and I refuse to believe that young and hungry wasn't at least part of the reason Lambert got the job at Villa. Abandoning the policy is tantamount to admitting that one of the reasons Lambert was employed in the first place turned out to be a mistake.