Lambert in or out? Poll reset with majority 'in', 7th May

[Greg N'Ash]

The thing people seem to not realise is that slating Lambert left, right and centre, then replying to the question with "who next" with "better than Lambert" is by their own definition, utterly meaningless and not good enough.

I'd say it's a pretty good starting point, replacing an underperforming/ incompetent employee with better. 

We might not be talking about the very cream, or a manager who targets CL qualification in 2/3 years anymore.  But -as Greg points out- there are quite a few who would back themselves to deliver more with the squad PL inherited in the summer plus the additional £20 million+ he had to spend.

Not sure I agree.

In one breath, Lambert is the worst manager we've ever had, in the next, "better than Lambert" is sufficient? Surely "better than Lambert" is meaningless if Lambert is so terrible?

Greg points out there are quite a few, but can't suggest a single viable name worth sacking Lambert and handing out a few more million in compensation for.

So Steve Kean then. You would have kept him at blackburn like the owners did to save on compensation. Lambert would have a similar record to him, well worse actually.

Good example Greg.

They fired him when Blackburn were second in the league and the knee-jerk manager that they brought in just because 'anyone would better' took them the bring of the relegation zone, so they had to fire him as well.

I'm not sure the above example really backs up your point all that well.

course it does. He has an awful record but not as bad as lambert's if we went down. I'm guessing paulie rates Lambchop higher than Kean? iF we go down he's mistaken

[Greg N'Ash]

Di matteo for all his faults would still have a staggeringly better record than Lambert if he took us down. my vote is for Di matteo. As for the other names most of 'em would have a better record than a post-relegated lambchop. See its not hard to beat total failure.

How many times, though, Greg .... can't you see that going on and on about Lambert being the worst manager we've ever had, then in the next breath suggesting that "better than Lambert" is sufficient reason to sack him and employ them in his place is utterly meaningless - by your own definition?

Beating "total failure" can still be failure. I thought we were sick of that?

so you just want to keep someone completely shit because the next guy may be just as bad? Great logic...

[Dave]

The thing people seem to not realise is that slating Lambert left, right and centre, then replying to the question with "who next" with "better than Lambert" is by their own definition, utterly meaningless and not good enough.

I'd say it's a pretty good starting point, replacing an underperforming/ incompetent employee with better. 

We might not be talking about the very cream, or a manager who targets CL qualification in 2/3 years anymore.  But -as Greg points out- there are quite a few who would back themselves to deliver more with the squad PL inherited in the summer plus the additional £20 million+ he had to spend.

Not sure I agree.

In one breath, Lambert is the worst manager we've ever had, in the next, "better than Lambert" is sufficient? Surely "better than Lambert" is meaningless if Lambert is so terrible?

Greg points out there are quite a few, but can't suggest a single viable name worth sacking Lambert and handing out a few more million in compensation for.

So Steve Kean then. You would have kept him at blackburn like the owners did to save on compensation. Lambert would have a similar record to him, well worse actually.

Good example Greg.

They fired him when Blackburn were second in the league and the knee-jerk manager that they brought in just because 'anyone would better' took them the bring of the relegation zone, so they had to fire him as well.

I'm not sure the above example really backs up your point all that well.

course it does. He has an awful record but not as bad as lambert's if we went down. I'm guessing paulie rates Lambchop higher than Kean? iF we go down he's mistaken

Nice try.

"So Steve Kean then. You would have kept him at blackburn like the owners did to save on compensation"

I expect Paulie would. I would have done too. Because he looked like he was about the get them promoted again and sacking him because Blackburn went down was clearly the wrong thing to do. As it turned out that yes, it is possible to end up with a worse manager than the one that you thought wasn't very good.

In your example, you're the one firing the manager of the second placed team in the league just to get an even worse manager in.

[Greg N'Ash]

Di matteo for all his faults would still have a staggeringly better record than Lambert if he took us down. my vote is for Di matteo. As for the other names most of 'em would have a better record than a post-relegated lambchop. See its not hard to beat total failure.

How many times, though, Greg .... can't you see that going on and on about Lambert being the worst manager we've ever had, then in the next breath suggesting that "better than Lambert" is sufficient reason to sack him and employ them in his place is utterly meaningless - by your own definition?

Beating "total failure" can still be failure. I thought we were sick of that?

so you just want to keep someone completely shit because the next guy may be just as bad? Great logic and probably the definition of giving up.

[PeterWithesShin]

Di matteo for all his faults would still have a staggeringly better record than Lambert if he took us down. my vote is for Di matteo. As for the other names most of 'em would have a better record than a post-relegated lambchop. See its not hard to beat total failure.

How many times, though, Greg .... can't you see that going on and on about Lambert being the worst manager we've ever had, then in the next breath suggesting that "better than Lambert" is sufficient reason to sack him and employ them in his place is utterly meaningless - by your own definition?

Beating "total failure" can still be failure. I thought we were sick of that?

so you just want to keep someone completely shit because the next guy may be just as bad? Great logic...

He can't be completely shit though can he? Otherwise we'd have less points than Derby. And we wouldn't have signed Guzan and Benteke. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate Greg.

I've also asked a million times for 3 names and you still owe me 2.

[Greg N'Ash]

Di matteo for all his faults would still have a staggeringly better record than Lambert if he took us down. my vote is for Di matteo. As for the other names most of 'em would have a better record than a post-relegated lambchop. See its not hard to beat total failure.

How many times, though, Greg .... can't you see that going on and on about Lambert being the worst manager we've ever had, then in the next breath suggesting that "better than Lambert" is sufficient reason to sack him and employ them in his place is utterly meaningless - by your own definition?

Beating "total failure" can still be failure. I thought we were sick of that?

so you just want to keep someone completely shit because the next guy may be just as bad? Great logic...

He can't be completely shit though can he? Otherwise we'd have less points than Derby. And we wouldn't have signed Guzan and Benteke. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate Greg.

I've also asked a million times for 3 names and you still owe me 2.

If all there was to management was signing good players than we'd have had a bit more success. As for the managers, take two random names from paulie's list. As good as any

[PeterWithesShin]

So you agree he isn't completely shit and that you are incapable of independently naming 3 managers you'd want.

[Greg N'Ash]

The thing people seem to not realise is that slating Lambert left, right and centre, then replying to the question with "who next" with "better than Lambert" is by their own definition, utterly meaningless and not good enough.

I'd say it's a pretty good starting point, replacing an underperforming/ incompetent employee with better. 

We might not be talking about the very cream, or a manager who targets CL qualification in 2/3 years anymore.  But -as Greg points out- there are quite a few who would back themselves to deliver more with the squad PL inherited in the summer plus the additional £20 million+ he had to spend.

Not sure I agree.

In one breath, Lambert is the worst manager we've ever had, in the next, "better than Lambert" is sufficient? Surely "better than Lambert" is meaningless if Lambert is so terrible?

Greg points out there are quite a few, but can't suggest a single viable name worth sacking Lambert and handing out a few more million in compensation for.

So Steve Kean then. You would have kept him at blackburn like the owners did to save on compensation. Lambert would have a similar record to him, well worse actually.

Good example Greg.

They fired him when Blackburn were second in the league and the knee-jerk manager that they brought in just because 'anyone would better' took them the bring of the relegation zone, so they had to fire him as well.

I'm not sure the above example really backs up your point all that well.

course it does. He has an awful record but not as bad as lambert's if we went down. I'm guessing paulie rates Lambchop higher than Kean? iF we go down he's mistaken

Nice try.

"So Steve Kean then. You would have kept him at blackburn like the owners did to save on compensation"

I expect Paulie would. I would have done too. Because he looked like he was about the get them promoted again and sacking him because Blackburn went down was clearly the wrong thing to do. As it turned out that yes, it is possible to end up with a worse manager than the one that you thought wasn't very good.

In your example, you're the one firing the manager of the second placed team in the league just to get an even worse manager in.

i said in the summer not when they did sack him. i'm well aware where they were in the league and having a premiership squad and being 2nd is frankly not much of a surprise. Not really relevant that they then decided to employ a total novice

[Greg N'Ash]

So you agree he isn't completely shit and that you are incapable of independently naming 3 managers you'd want.

I've named them. Di matteo or anyone with a better record than Lambert post relegation. Any name you want to rubbish from that large list feel free .

[PeterWithesShin]

So you agree he isn't completely shit and that you are incapable of independently naming 3 managers you'd want.

I've named them. Di matteo or anyone with a better record than Lambert post relegation. Any name you want to rubbish from that large list feel free .

You've named RDM who has been mentioned more than once before and anyone from the list Paulie gave. You said there were 40, name some of your own.

[LeeB]

So you agree he isn't completely shit and that you are incapable of independently naming 3 managers you'd want.

I've named them. Di matteo or anyone with a better record than Lambert post relegation. Any name you want to rubbish from that large list feel free .

You've named RDM who has been mentioned more than once before and anyone from the list Paulie gave. You said there were 40, name some of your own.

[Greg N'Ash]

i'll just nick paulie's list then

Phil Brown
Billy Davies
Alan Curbishley.
Steve Bruce

[PeterWithesShin]

So now you know why I think you are incapable of naming any of the ones you want. All you do is use the only names already mentioned, which isn't many out of the 40. Just name 3 of the over 30 obvious candidates not yet mentioned that you'd be okay with.

[Greg N'Ash]

Adkins

[PeterWithesShin]

That's better, only 2 more

And for what it's worth I wouldn't be reaching for the noose IF we went down and IF we parted with Lambert and ended up with Adkins.