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

[Rip Van We Go Again]

I think he tried to do too much too soon , to lose so many experienced players and replace them with 9 players none who had ever played in the premiership has left us woefully short of   experience - in theory it may seem a good idea but it needed a more gradual transition .

Big fat Ron did something similar, but didn't wholly rely on youngsters.

To be fair to Billy McLambert, this direction is probably due to Lerner's Osbornomics.

[eastie]

I think he tried to do too much too soon , to lose so many experienced players and replace them with 9 players none who had ever played in the premiership has left us woefully short of   experience - in theory it may seem a good idea but it needed a more gradual transition .

Big fat Ron did something similar, but didn't wholly rely on youngsters.

To be fair to Billy McLambert, this direction is probably due to Lerner's Osbornomics.

Exactly , ron brought in some experience with the likes  of regis, richardson, staunton , supplemented by people like teale and atkinson whereas lambert has signed nobody with any premiership experience at all.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

I still think Lerner has to largely carry the can for this mess though.
For all we know, Mumbles might well have wanted to sign some experience, but might have been stopped by the desire to bring the wage bill down.

[Drummond]

There are two approaches aren't there?

We knew there was a lot of dross in the squad that needed to go and that the club have underperformed from where we all expect to be for years.

So Lambert decided to wholesale ditch and try and rebuild with youth; a risky strategy short term but with perceived long term benefits.

The other view is to bring in the same number of players but some of whom were older, wiser and more expensive (which we all know is something Lerner probably baulked at).

I'm happy with the theory behind Lambert's approach to it, though it's risky. I'm firmly of the belief that even if we go down, we will come back and be stronger in the long term.

Whichever way you look at it, it's very, very risky taking a chance on relegation.

[Chico Hamilton III]

I'm firmly of the belief that even if we go down, we will come back and be stronger in the long term.

Sorry, but I'm not as forgiving. If he takes us down he should be sacked and escorted off the premises as soon as the final whistle goes at Reading (assuming we havent already been relegated by then).

If he keeps us up and Lerner stubbornly refuses to sack him, Lambert needs to start thinking of an alternative strategy to the one that's failing miserably at the moment. Buy a couple of brick walls with solid premier league experience to put in the centre of defence and the centre of midfield.

The side we have at the moment has no chance of getting out of the championship bear pit. They don't have the fight in them.

[Steve R]

People seem to forget the state we were in at the end of last season. We were awful and would have been relegated by some distance if it weren't for the 13 points in 7 games start we made. This wasn't a bad spell, it had been the same since October/November time.

The poverty of the football beggared belief.The approach Lambert took was the only one that would turn it around. It was risky but nothing like as risky as trying (yet again) to flog winning football out of the likes of Hutton, Warnock, Dunne & co. We had no choice but to take risk.

Bringing 2,3 or 4 players into the kind of ethos our squad had would have done nothing but drag the newcomers down.

If we do fail this season it won't be because of the players that were bought or sold. It will be down to the ones we didn't buy or should have got rid of but couldn't.

[pauliewalnuts]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the strategy of moving on some of the older relics of MON's era, and blooding youth products plus young players we've bought in from elsewhere.

The problem is that, if you are going to promote youth, then to do it properly, you have to be very very careful about how you introduce them. That, in my mind, is where we have got it wrong.

I know it is hard to compare the two clubs, but there are points to be drawn from looking at how Ferguson introduced that golden generation of kids in the 90s - especially Giggs - slowly but surely.

I appreciate that injuries have taken a toll this year, and that they probably didn't expect to have to play so many kids at once. However, the flip side of that is that the squad, not just the first XI, is too reliant on kids. Had there been more experience available, we'd have had better options to come in.

I also worry what the effect of this season will be on some of these younger players. I firmly believe that the hangover of getting drubbed by 8 (an 8 which could have been an 18, to be honest) at Chelsea has contributed hugely to our run of terrible form since then.

We've hit on a decent strategy, the execution of it has been poor, though. Too lopsided, and somewhat naive to think we can become like Ajax at all, let alone in the space of one season.

We've then gone about this new strategy way, way too quickly, and will probably get relegated as a result.

[Steve R]

It depends upon what you mean by poor Paulie. The signings made have been pretty good on the whole. Where we were at risk was the notion that Dunne would be fit (and effective) reasonably soon, and that the one international midfielder we signed would be a success. We have paid dearly for both not being the case.

The re-signing of Guzan and the capture of Lowton, Westwood and especially Benteke were the sort of things O'Neill should have been doing when the going was good.

The Chelsea defeat was a killer. Not just in itself, but also that it came at a time when we had no choice but to go into the next few games with players who really needed a break to take stock. Dunne as ever was injured, Vlaar too.

What may actually save us is where Lambert has put his faith in younger players and it has paid dividends. Weimann's and Benteke's goals need to keep coming.

[andyh]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

[Greg N'Ash]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

Indeed. I still think he'd be on a hiding to nothing anyway if he stayed after relegation. He may well be capable of getting us promoted but he'd have to get off to a complete flyer. Knocking around the play-off places and a few disappointing results come Christmas would not be acceptable. The drop in the percieved standard of the opposition would in effect raise the bar expectation wise.

[Chris Smith]

If we go down and Lambert doesn't get sacked, how will the club reconcile that with the comments that were made when the original TSM was sacked.
How can you possibly keep someone in a job that has performed worse than the previous incumbent was sacked for ?

Surely, whats good for the goose......... ? 

The thing is, where does it stop? If the next manager struggles when do we sack him? At some point a more reflective, less reactionary view has to prevail. The club surely must, at some point, have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment despite setbacks.

If we have a new manager for next season, we'll be on our 5th different manager in as many seasons. Surely, that must be time for even the most blood thirsty of you to stop and consider whether the approach is working.

Wanting somebody yo carry the can for relegation is understandable but in this case I think we need to take a more long term view.

[eastie]

It stops when we get a manager who delivers the results that he is paid to do - do a good job and you stay , do a bad job and you can expect the sack.

[Chris Smith]

It stops when we get a manager who delivers the results that he is paid to do - do a good job and you stay , do a bad job and you can expect the sack.

Well that approach has worked swimmingly so far.

[mr underhill]

nobody should be rewarded for failure. if Lambert gets us relegated he's history or should be. Who cares if he's the fifth manager in so many years.

[Chris Smith]

nobody should be rewarded for failure. if Lambert gets us relegated he's history or should be. Who cares if he's the fifth manager in so many years.

It's not learning from your mistakes, it's myopic, it's like a Bluebottle repeatedly flying into the window.

At some point the club has to have the courage of its convictions and stick with an appointment, even if it does mean taking a step backwards to start with.