Jump to content

Paul Lambert


limpid

Recommended Posts

 

I would actually love to see a full list of his records since he came, it would be absolutely atrocious reading.

I posted it last week if you're bothered looking for it

 

 

Think i saw the post, in my imagination it'd be much, much longer though. It seems like he breaks a new one every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much better today Paul thanks. Thought he got it spot on, made the right changes when needed too I thought.

All eyes on Tuesday night. The biggest game of his career and one if the biggest in our history I suspect.

Anyone able to give me a lift from/to London?!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my team for Hull would be 

 

Guzan

Hutton Okore Clark Cissokho

    Westwood Sanchez Delph

  Gil                                    Sinclair 

                  Weimann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

B9Q64llCYAAYwNp.png

That is just sad. It tells as much about Lerner as Lambert. Both are clueless.

 

Interesting how the top 3 got to the final of a major competition too, but only one won.

Interesting too how 1 spent a lot of money doing it and the other 2 didn't spend so much.

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how the top 3 got to the final of a major competition too, but only one won.

Interesting too how 1 spent a lot of money doing it and the other 2 didn't spend so much.

 

could argue Gregory spent a lot of money for the time. Dublin, Merson, Mellberg, Alpay, Balaban were all expensive enough for the time

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

could argue Gregory spent a lot of money for the time. Dublin, Merson, Mellberg, Alpay, Balaban were all expensive enough for the time

 

I think it could also be argued he had better value for his money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well im not going to argue that ;) except poor Bosko obviously

 

wasn't given a chance....just joking

 

All managers sign duffers.....the crucial thing is to sign more good than bad...its the ratio that matters and spells out a good manager v a not so good one.....and also how much better they get after we sign them?

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems pretty negative on here to me after a good performance against a side likely to win the league.

We all by now know that a lot of people, based on what they see in the past, think we need to change the manager to progress, or even survive. A smaller number, based perhaps less on the past and more on the future - as they see it - think we should stick by him.

As such it would make more sense to me to try to look at games objectively.

I take marks point that ' we are not looking in isolation' but in a way, from herein, we maybe should ?

If I do, (for example temporarily ignoring the historic evidence that a good performance has often flattered to deceive !) I see a lot in this performance to give hope...I think he made decisive changes before the game, the defensive unit was tighter, we didn't play hoof ball but did pass with purpose, and we committed reasonable numbers when attacking.

I would say this again begs the question why are such things so sporadic, but at least they were all good signs, and showed, as many have said, including the manager, that the players themselves are good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We still lost though. We were very good in a period before and after half time where the belief came back after six or seven games of mostly rubbish. Problem is we've done this before and done nothing the next game. Tuesday is a massive game for the future of the club in my opinion. Lambert or no Lambert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems pretty negative on here to me after a good performance against a side likely to win the league.

We all by now know that a lot of people, based on what they see in the past, think we need to change the manager to progress, or even survive. A smaller number, based perhaps less on the past and more on the future - as they see it - think we should stick by him.

As such it would make more sense to me to try to look at games objectively.

I take marks point that ' we are not looking in isolation' but in a way, from herein, we maybe should ?

If I do, (for example temporarily ignoring the historic evidence that a good performance has often flattered to deceive !) I see a lot in this performance to give hope...I think he made decisive changes before the game, the defensive unit was tighter, we didn't play hoof ball but did pass with purpose, and we committed reasonable numbers when attacking.

I would say this again begs the question why are such things so sporadic, but at least they were all good signs, and showed, as many have said, including the manager, that the players themselves are good enough.

 

The crucial question is how much did Chelsea put in to the game to win.....maybe, maybe they just did enough.

My view is this game will have no bearing on the next fixtures...its a different battle on a different day.

 

On the surface it looks like a good defeat( meaning a defeat with a decent performance) if there can ever be such a thing and I do think they were fortunate, with their second, but i go back to my original point...did enough for 3 points.

 

We have had close fought defeats before against top opposition and then gone on to drop points against lowly opposition.

 

We have just got to scrap to get points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â