Jump to content

Paul Lambert


Pilchard

Recommended Posts

Coincidence I reported on here Bent was trying to talk to Lambert tactically with Ireland backing him up and they had a huge fall out. Funny its Ireland and Bent with the quality issues!

 

Where did you hear this and when this was claimed to happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, 14 games to get 18 points, at the very least.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Looking at it like that - we can do it.  However we need to wake ourselves up from this poor form.  Just need one result to go for us.

 

 

If you think about it we should have beat baggies with a 2-0 lead, we should have beat Swansea after being 2-1 into injury time, we did beat Bradford (but not by enough) so there is something to be optimistic in the not so distant past. WE CAN DO IT!

 

YAY POSITIVITY!!!

 

Beat West Ham, QPR, Fulham and Sunderland at home and get 6-8 points from Reading, Stoke, Norwich and Wigan away. 

 

UTV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was always going to take Houllier to get things going with the circumstances he took over. He did turn things around and we had a good finish. We should have kept him on, we'd be in a much better position now if we had.

 

I agree, Houllier got lot of stick, some of it deserved and some undeserved but I could clearly see what he was trying to do and what he was brought to do. I can see why he was brought in; experienced manager who has great connections in english and european football, knows the game inside-and-out, can bring in great prospects due his reputation alone, brought in recognition and credibility but given his medical history he was always going to be big risk, which very unfortunately proved to be true.

 

In the hindsight he could've brought in some a bit younger similar figure who was still in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yeah, our club must be complete mess behind the scenes, too bad we probably don't know what has gone behind the scenes of our club in the last 2,5 years.

 

Yeah, wasn't saying it must be anything. just reminding people that while it's entirely fair to criticuse Lambert for things on and off the pitch we ultimately dont know why Bent's on the bench, stripped of the captaincy, we dont know why Ireland doesn't perform unless he's advertised on Twitter the previous night. In Irelands case his whole career looks like a missed opportunity & I dont think we can blame lambert for that, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was always going to take Houllier time to get things going with the circumstances he took over. He did turn things around and we had a good finish. We should have kept him on, we'd be in a much better position now if we had.

 

Not sure why we are talking about Houllier but.... a few points.

 

1. The circumstances he took over? He took over a team on the back of 3 6th place finishes which granted had lost a couple of players but was still a far better side than those coming after him inherited.

2. He made the side worse, moral was low and a number of the players seemingly disliked him. He spent £30m on Bent and Makoun and yet we still struggled.

3. He didn't turn things around, he got ill and they turned around in his absence. By the way the highest finish Liverpool achieved in his time at the club was when he was absent for most of the season at Phil Thompson  

    was in charge.

4. He wasn't physically up to the job, keeping him wasn't really an option.

5. Had he stayed there is literally nothing to suggest we would be in a much better position now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced we'd be any better off if Houllier was still here now.

Many of the things Lambert gets criticised for:

- Unable to motivate bigger name players

- Freezing certain players out

- Spending big money without improving us

- Tactically naive

Also applied to Houllier.

Edited by AvfcTheObsession
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Houllier got lot of stick, some of it deserved and some undeserved but I could clearly see what he was trying to do and what he was brought to do. I can see why he was brought in; experienced manager who has great connections in english and european football, knows the game inside-and-out, can bring in great prospects due his reputation alone, brought in recognition and credibility but given his medical history he was always going to be big risk, which very unfortunately proved to be true.

In the hindsight he could've brought in some a bit younger similar figure who was still in the game.

Yep. Houllier was poor at dealing with the fans and has become a hate figure with some but he was a much better manager than Lambert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced we'd be any better off if Houllier was still here now.

Many of the things Lambert gets criticised for:

- Unable to motivate bigger name players

- Freezing certain players out

- Spending big money without improving us

- Tactically naive

Also applied to Houllier.

 

- Stubborn on playing certain way; I remember lot of us tearing our hair out for playing Gabby on the wing and Ashley Young in the hole where he doesn't suit at all but he might've done that trying to get Young to sign new contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why we are talking about Houllier but.... a few points.

 

1. The circumstances he took over? He took over a team on the back of 3 6th place finishes which granted had lost a couple of players but was still a far better side than those coming after him inherited.

2. He made the side worse, moral was low and a number of the players seemingly disliked him. He spent £30m on Bent and Makoun and yet we still struggled.

3. He didn't turn things around, he got ill and they turned around in his absence. By the way the highest finish Liverpool achieved in his time at the club was when he was absent for most of the season at Phil Thompson  

    was in charge.

4. He wasn't physically up to the job, keeping him wasn't really an option.

5. Had he stayed there is literally nothing to suggest we would be in a much better position now.

 

Won't let me like the post but I completely agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why we are talking about Houllier but.... a few points.

 

1. The circumstances he took over? He took over a team on the back of 3 6th place finishes which granted had lost a couple of players but was still a far better side than those coming after him inherited.

2. He made the side worse, moral was low and a number of the players seemingly disliked him. He spent £30m on Bent and Makoun and yet we still struggled.

3. He didn't turn things around, he got ill and they turned around in his absence. By the way the highest finish Liverpool achieved in his time at the club was when he was absent for most of the season at Phil Thompson  

    was in charge.

4. He wasn't physically up to the job, keeping him wasn't really an option.

5. Had he stayed there is literally nothing to suggest we would be in a much better position now.

 

1. 6 games in. No preseason. Massive injury crisis (as did McLeish, tbf). Milner gone. Cracks in the defense papered over.

2. As compared to those same players under McLeish and now Lambert? The constant denominator is....?

3. So he gets the blame when things aren't good, but no credit when it turns around. Seems fair.

4. I can't argue with that. Signing him was a risk, keeping him on was not remotely possible.

5. This is also true.

 

Just as with MON, not everything wrong with the club at the time was attributable to him.

2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "the team turned around after Houllier got ill" thing is a myth. We were already on a good run prior to him being taken ill.

Yep.

The first few months of Houllier's time here can be seen as his 'preseason'. Then once he had bedded in his style the results were coming regularly.

Of course we then went and ripped the whole plan up and started down the McLeish route that summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

The first few months of Houllier's time here can be seen as his 'preseason'. Then once he had bedded in his style the results were coming regularly.

Of course we then went and ripped the whole plan up and started down the McLeish route that summer.

 

I wonder if things would have been different if we got Lambert instead of McLeish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

The first few months of Houllier's time here can be seen as his 'preseason'. Then once he had bedded in his style the results were coming regularly.

Of course we then went and ripped the whole plan up and started down the McLeish route that summer.

Yep, the lack of continuity between those two appointments was shocking. Swansea have built the club over recent years by employing managers with the same ethos as the previous manager, moving from Martinez to Rodgers to Laudrup. That should have been the thinking when we were looking to replace Houllier. Instead Randy went the anti-football route and went for McLeish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what happens this season, I'm not going to be calling for Lamberts head

Even if we go down we'd be best sticking with this manager and rebuilding with him

Hardest job in the PL

Ha

 

Some funny posts at the start of the thread.

Edited by villarule123
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the lack of continuity between those two appointments was shocking. Swansea have built the club over recent years by employing managers with the same ethos as the previous manager, moving from Martinez to Rodgers to Laudrup. That should have been the thinking when we were looking to replace Houllier. Instead Randy went the anti-football route and went for McLeish.

I think this is one of the examples where the lack of football experience at board level shows. We could have done with a director of football really, that would have given us a few policies and a direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â