HanoiVillan Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Just to re-state what everyone is saying . . . the defence wasn't the problem in those games, the attack was. Better teams than us have done worse than conceding two late goals against Man City. We let 3 in against arsenal, a game in which if i remember correctly a lot of people were putting the blame on Clark for at least one of the goals (1). We then let 3 in against chelsea, 2 against city, 3 against a poor everton side, 2 against QPR, 2 against spurs, who also had some very good chances before we were down to 10 men(2) and the only reason we kept a clean sheet against west ham was because guzan was brilliant and they finished poorly. There were other issues in those games but not sure how anyone can look at that run and decide it was unthinkable to drop any of our defenders based on that.(3) We certainly weren't a defensive rock in many games despite a few decent individual performances in our defence. 1) Clark wasn't in favour at that point and was picked out of necessity. 2) I know how many we conceded - but those are, bar QPR, most of the best teams in the division. 3) None of the centre backs who started those games played badly enough individually to deserve dropping. Simple. 1) Regardless of why he was picked you said defence wasn't a problem. Read the Clark thread, it clearly was a problem in that game. 2) Good teams or not if we're conceding and losing surely it's not crazy to change the defence. And Everton and Spurs were certainly not playing like top teams at that point. 3) None of them had terrible games but then a defence has to be a unit and that unit was not stopping teams scoring or creating good chances, even though there were some good individual performances. It wouldn't have been completely unreasonable to have changed the defence at some point. I don't think you realise how poorly the Clark example serves your point. He played badly against Arsenal, and was dropped for the Chelsea game despite being available for selection. In fact, here is a clear example of Lambert dropping a centre back when he plays poorly. Does this not suggest that in the other games, the centre backs just didn't play that poorly? Per the other two points, conceding goals against top half teams is exactly what bottom half teams do. Stoke didn't play very well against Chelsea last night, do you expect Shawcross to be dropped for the next game? Of course not, conceding goals against those teams is priced in. You don't immediately leap to the conclusion that your defence has played badly because they've conceded a couple of goals to Champions League chasers. Basically, there are thousands of legitimate sticks to knock Lambert with, but you've picked one of the few where he's genuinely impervious. He signed the player. He brought the player into the team when necessary. He has gotten some brilliant performances from the player in recent games. RE Okore, Lambert is on safe ground. Edited December 23, 2014 by HanoiVillan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I'm really not knocking Lambert I just disagreed that it was a situation that was managed to perfection. Full credit for signing another good player and full credit for the performances okore is now putting in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Still no answer... I've answered those who I wish to debate with. 'I don't have an answer' FYI, you haven't given an answer to anybody. You've just repeated your twisted arguments over and over again. God forbid Lambert do something right.God forbid Lambert do something wrong. 'He has managed him to perfection'. God forbid we question Okore coming into the side sooner and therefore we're questioning Lambert's judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 23, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2014 Managing him well doesn't mean playing him at the exact second that he would perform well in the team. It means not rushing him back (pre season certainly suggested to me and many others that Jores wasn't ready yet), keeping him happy, giving him his chance when the opportunity arises and sticking with him when he deserves it. Shoving him into the starting XI, even if he was ready, at the expense of one of the centrebacks who were all playing well is not good management. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I've not said anything about dropping players who had taken their chances by the scruff of the neck and played well. I'm saying that Okore possibly should have been ahead of Clark (and/or Baker). IIRC, Clark didn't come into the team until later in the season. Okore could have been brought into the team then (only 2 or 3 weeks earlier than he was? Possibly?). I don't agree with this whole 'Lambert's managed him perfectly' opinion, when our trusted ITK said that Lambert didn't think Okore was anywhere near being ready for the first team (not just fitness), and yet when he came into the side, he's been one of our BEST players in the games he's played. How can he have been THAT far away from looking like a Premier League player? I think Lambert used him as a last resort when injuries hit, and Lambert probably didn't think he would play as well as he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Maybe he's playing well because he's ready now?? He could have been ready earlier as well but just couldn't get into the team because of how well the other 3 CBs were performing, and rightly so. Without trying to sound like a broken record, if Lambert didn't think he was ready he would have played Herd or someone when the other CBs got injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Managing him well doesn't mean playing him at the exact second that he would perform well in the team. It means not rushing him back (pre season certainly suggested to me and many others that Jores wasn't ready yet), keeping him happy, giving him his chance when the opportunity arises and sticking with him when he deserves it. Shoving him into the starting XI, even if he was ready, at the expense of one of the centrebacks who were all playing well is not good management. Clark had a terrible game against arsenal, could he not have come in then? Following that we let in 3 against chelsea. After two 3-0 losses I doubt any fan or player could have complained about okore getting a chance. I'd also disagree he kept him happy. Happy players don't talk to national papers about possibly having to leave to get games. He sounded frustrated and I'd imagine had we not had injuries he'd be even more frustrated at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 23, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2014 I've not said anything about dropping players who had taken their chances by the scruff of the neck and played well. I'm saying that Okore possibly should have been ahead of Clark (and/or Baker). IIRC, Clark didn't come into the team until later in the season. Okore could have been brought into the team then (only 2 or 3 weeks earlier than he was? Possibly?). I don't agree with this whole 'Lambert's managed him perfectly' opinion, when our trusted ITK said that Lambert didn't think Okore was anywhere near being ready for the first team (not just fitness), and yet when he came into the side, he's been one of our BEST players in the games he's played. How can he have been THAT far away from looking like a Premier League player? I think Lambert used him as a last resort when injuries hit, and Lambert probably didn't think he would play as well as he has. Why did he deserve to start in front of Baker or Clark? (Although Clark's barely played until he started in the same game as Okore did) Who would Lambert have dropped to accommodate Okore? I certainly wouldn't have dropped Baker, Vlaar or Senderos. They were all playing pretty well. Lambert used him as a last resort? You mean he used him when the centrebacks ahead of him in the pecking order were unavailable? I don't see what's wrong with that. It's not liek he was crowbarring fullbacks into CB to avoid playing Okore. People keep saying he didn't get a chance. He did. He played in pre-season and was shite. That was probably enough for Lambert to put him as 4th or 5th choice. The other centrebacks ahead of him have all played well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Maybe he's playing well because he's ready now?? He could have been ready earlier as well but just couldn't get into the team because of how well the other 3 CBs were performing, and rightly so. Without trying to sound like a broken record, if Lambert didn't think he was ready he would have played Herd or someone when the other CBs got injured. You might be right but it seems a massive coincidence that the exact moment he's ready is the exact moment there are no other fit defenders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Managing him well doesn't mean playing him at the exact second that he would perform well in the team. It means not rushing him back (pre season certainly suggested to me and many others that Jores wasn't ready yet), keeping him happy, giving him his chance when the opportunity arises and sticking with him when he deserves it. Shoving him into the starting XI, even if he was ready, at the expense of one of the centrebacks who were all playing well is not good management. Clark had a terrible game against arsenal, could he not have come in then? Following that we let in 3 against chelsea. After two 3-0 losses I doubt any fan or player could have complained about okore getting a chance. I'd also disagree he kept him happy. Happy players don't talk to national papers about possibly having to leave to get games. He sounded frustrated and I'd imagine had we not had injuries he'd be even more frustrated at the moment. You could argue that, had Baker remained injured (although it would still be slightly harsh on Clark). But Baker was back for the next game, and rightly regained his spot because he was playing so well prior to his injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 23, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2014 People are talking as if he's Alan Hutton and he's been in the wilderness for 2 years. He's been on the fringes of the squad for about 10 games at the start of a season after making only 3 appearances previously and missing almost a year through serious injury. God forbid Lambert would be slightly cautious about bringing him back into the team 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 23, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted December 23, 2014 Maybe he's playing well because he's ready now?? He could have been ready earlier as well but just couldn't get into the team because of how well the other 3 CBs were performing, and rightly so. Without trying to sound like a broken record, if Lambert didn't think he was ready he would have played Herd or someone when the other CBs got injured. You might be right but it seems a massive coincidence that the exact moment he's ready is the exact moment there are no other fit defenders That probably wasn't the exact moment he was ready. But that was a good opportunity to give him a chance. And he's taken it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Maybe he's playing well because he's ready now?? He could have been ready earlier as well but just couldn't get into the team because of how well the other 3 CBs were performing, and rightly so. Without trying to sound like a broken record, if Lambert didn't think he was ready he would have played Herd or someone when the other CBs got injured. You might be right but it seems a massive coincidence that the exact moment he's ready is the exact moment there are no other fit defenders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 God forbid Lambert would be slightly cautious about bringing him back into the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Maybe he's playing well because he's ready now?? He could have been ready earlier as well but just couldn't get into the team because of how well the other 3 CBs were performing, and rightly so. Without trying to sound like a broken record, if Lambert didn't think he was ready he would have played Herd or someone when the other CBs got injured. You might be right but it seems a massive coincidence that the exact moment he's ready is the exact moment there are no other fit defenders That probably wasn't the exact moment he was ready. But that was a good opportunity to give him a chance. And he's taken it. I agree with that, I just think there were other chances he could have come in which could have helped us and stopped okore getting frustrated. If we hadn't had injuries what would be looking at? Probably okore wanting to leave in a couple of weeks. It's not really an issue to criticise Lambert over, it's not an easy one where there's a clear right way to do everything. But at the same time IMO it wasn't handled perfectly and actually we've been fortunate that we've now got a top player happy and playing week in week out. What would managing him perfectly entail then? Putting him in the team earlier at the expense of well-performing CBs and possibly before he's ready? Just to keep him happy so we don't lose him (which wasn't going to happen anyway, and if it did it would have been on loan). That's not good management, or even realistic management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I've not said anything about dropping players who had taken their chances by the scruff of the neck and played well. I'm saying that Okore possibly should have been ahead of Clark (and/or Baker). IIRC, Clark didn't come into the team until later in the season. Okore could have been brought into the team then (only 2 or 3 weeks earlier than he was? Possibly?). I don't agree with this whole 'Lambert's managed him perfectly' opinion, when our trusted ITK said that Lambert didn't think Okore was anywhere near being ready for the first team (not just fitness), and yet when he came into the side, he's been one of our BEST players in the games he's played. How can he have been THAT far away from looking like a Premier League player? I think Lambert used him as a last resort when injuries hit, and Lambert probably didn't think he would play as well as he has. Many people who went to the pre season home friendly said Okore was feeling his knee a bit and looked unconvincing. Lambert started the season with Senderos and Vlaar and you can't disagree with that given we started the season very strongly defensively. I suppose we could've put him in when Vlaar got injured in September, that would be a justifiable claim rather than Baker although he played quite well in his games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) .. Edited December 24, 2014 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 God forbid Lambert would be slightly cautious about bringing him back into the team No ones really criticising Lambert over it though. I don't think it was managed to perfection and I don't think it was managed badly. I don't really understand why so much digital ink then . . . how often do you do your job 'to perfection'? Would you consider that a fair way of evaluating your job performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSV Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 new deal ASAP! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I agree this is the time to give him a 5 year deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts