Stoke City v Aston Villa Post-Match Thread

[saunders_heroes]

Well, for those with no memories, today he played an incoherent but definitely attacking 4-2-4, whereas McLeish played Hutton in midfield. Does anything else need to be said?

Why compare him only to McLeish though?  A man who should never have got the job in the first place.   Unless it's the only way we can think of to make him appear not so bad.

Lambert's record IS bad. Everyone knows McLeish was awful, but he's gone, he's history and he can't do us anymore harm. Lambert is still here though and he's still inflicting pain and misery on us with practically every passing week.
And in my opinion he's every bit as bad if not worse than McLeish. It's a truly desperate argument when you have to refer back to McLeish to make you feel a little bit better about the mess we're in right now. And it's well past it's sell by date as well.

[cheadlevilla]

Realistically who else is there... If anyone mentions Curbs then I'm off !!!

[Monty]

I seem to recall one of the reasons, maybe the main reason,  given for disposing of the "services" of TSM was the desire for a more "compelling brand of football".  I'm afraid Lambert's brand of football is currently as compelling as sticking a red hot knitting needle up your jap's eye.

The difference is he knows it's rubbish and is trying to make it better. I do agree that he may not be able to, but the difference between him and McLeish is stark.

How's that then?  How is Lambert trying to make it better? 

Well, for those with no memories, today he played an incoherent but definitely attacking 4-2-4, whereas McLeish played Hutton in midfield. Does anything else need to be said?

Why not? We were paying him £60k a week. Lambert is paid to manage not fall out with players who he can't handle.

Come on DC5, I know you have a higher opinion of McLeish than most of us and that's fine, but do you really think Hutton was a) worth how much we were paying for him, or b) suitable to play on the wing? It's his most notorious decision. Even Spurs fans I know said they felt depressed when they saw that.

[ChicagoLion]

Realistically who else is there... If anyone mentions Curbs then I'm off !!!

CURBS

[ktvillan]

I seem to recall one of the reasons, maybe the main reason,  given for disposing of the "services" of TSM was the desire for a more "compelling brand of football".  I'm afraid Lambert's brand of football is currently as compelling as sticking a red hot knitting needle up your jap's eye.

The difference is he knows it's rubbish and is trying to make it better. I do agree that he may not be able to, but the difference between him and McLeish is stark.

Hardly. TSM's main tactic was not to lose. Lambert's is not to play. Both are clueless.

I loathed and despised McLeish and his negativity but at least you knew he had a diiscernable tactical strategy, style and approach.  Which was cack and you knew it always would be.  I've genuinely no idea no idea what Lambert's tactical strategy, style or approach is, it seems to change on a monthly basis.  It's still cack, but I suppose, unlike McLeish,  there is at least the chance it might not be quite so cack next month. 

[Legion]

Aidy Boothroyd.

[pauliewalnuts]

Well, for those with no memories, today he played an incoherent but definitely attacking 4-2-4, whereas McLeish played Hutton in midfield. Does anything else need to be said?

Why compare him only to McLeish though?  A man who should never have got the job in the first place.   Unless it's the only way we can think of to make him appear not so bad.

It's nothing like as bad as it was under McLeish.

I am sure Lambert wants us to play better football, but he doesn't appear to know how to.

McLeish had no ideas about playing good football, what we did under him was what his teams do

I am very worried about Lambert, though, his signings look almost all rubbish.

I also think there's a gigantic amount of delusion about the club re this policy of theirs. It's not just a case of buying cheap, young, low wage, ambitious players. It's about buying *good* players, too, and that is the problem. Too many of them really aren't very good.

I also think there's a tendency to think "well, we just need to wait till they're more experienced, because then we'll start to improve considerably", but that is nonsense. There's no guarantee that any of these players will become of a decent quality, let alone all of them.

It's a risky, risky game to play, and you have to wonder to what extent the board's acceptance of this plan is about it being feasible (surely, if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it?), and to what extent it is about it being cheap.

[UK Redsox]

Realistically who else is there... If anyone mentions Curbs then I'm off !!!

Malky

[hilts_coolerking]

It's a risky, risky game to play, and you have to wonder to what extent the board's acceptance of this plan is about it being feasible (surely, if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it?), and to what extent it is about it being cheap.

I think basically it's about doing the minimum required to prevent relegation.

[Jon Crofts]

It's a risky, risky game to play, and you have to wonder to what extent the board's acceptance of this plan is about it being feasible (surely, if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it?), and to what extent it is about it being cheap.

I think basically it's about doing the minimum required to prevent relegation.

Lord Lucan does know there is such a thing as relegation right?

[ChicagoLion]

Actually TSM1 had less money than TSM2 has been given. I doubt if TSM 1 would have spotted or signed Benteke, I doubt though that he would have bought the bundles of garbage that Lambert has signed.

Football wise, well at least you could see what TSM1 was trying to do (not lose and hang on to his job).

Any one have any idea what Lambert is doing?

[eric woolban woolban]

Di cani....

Di matteo, avb, dean smith, George graham,

[PaulWinch again]

Another bad one then?

[paul_e]

Well, for those with no memories, today he played an incoherent but definitely attacking 4-2-4, whereas McLeish played Hutton in midfield. Does anything else need to be said?

Why compare him only to McLeish though?  A man who should never have got the job in the first place.   Unless it's the only way we can think of to make him appear not so bad.

It's nothing like as bad as it was under McLeish.

I am sure Lambert wants us to play better football, but he doesn't appear to know how to.

McLeish had no ideas about playing good football, what we did under him was what his teams do

I am very worried about Lambert, though, his signings look almost all rubbish.

I also think there's a gigantic amount of delusion about the club re this policy of theirs. It's not just a case of buying cheap, young, low wage, ambitious players. It's about buying *good* players, too, and that is the problem. Too many of them really aren't very good.

I also think there's a tendency to think "well, we just need to wait till they're more experienced, because then we'll start to improve considerably", but that is nonsense. There's no guarantee that any of these players will become of a decent quality, let alone all of them.

It's a risky, risky game to play, and you have to wonder to what extent the board's acceptance of this plan is about it being feasible (surely, if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it?), and to what extent it is about it being cheap.

For me the next stage of the process is to identify which of the signings have worked and which haven't and then replace the ones who haven't with players of higher quality.  For me I'd be looking to move on KEA and Bowery and replace them with a couple of 5-6m midfielders to improve the team.  After that we can see if that brings more from some of the others and review it next summer, again looking for 2-3 who aren't cutting it and replace them with bit of quality.

[PaulWinch again]

This sounds really poor again after reading the thread.