The Paul Lambert thread - poll reset after our capitulation to Hull

[Chris Smith]

Baggies under Mowbray is often brought up as the 'prime example', but it is in fact a bit of an anomaly. For years the promoted sides have generally played negative, old-fashioned football and it's tended to get them relegated. In recent years, more teams have been coming up from the Championship have been a bit braver and a bit smarter and a bit more modern, and these clubs have started to establish themselves as regulars. The idea that style and results are somehow not just divorced but antithetical is a myth.

Like Stoke for example or West Ham perhaps?

Southampton are the obvious ones that conforms to your theory but they are the exception not the rule. Most of the recently promoted sides are below us in the table regardless of the style of football they have tried to play.

I'd have thought Swansea would be the most immediate example, but there we are.

The point is that this idea of style as unhelpful to getting points is, frankly, bollocks. If you play badly in any style you'll probably lose. Seeing as we're probably not going to go down I'd rather have us play more interesting and hopeful football, and football with much less of an obvious limit on it.

Yet if we are in trouble Swansea are in more due to being below us in the table having played a game more. Until recently they were a good example but lack of patience has hit them too and are muddling through with an interim manager.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Missing their main striker for most of the season hasn't helped. Imagine us without Benteke. There'd be nobody to hoof it up to.

[Monty]

The stuff I've read suggests that the reason Laudrup's tenure went wrong is because he was too hands-off and simplistic, and lost sight of the Swansea ways of hard pressing and hard work in training. Garry Monk has got them playing better again, but they're still in trouble of course. Laudrup wanted them to stop being so passing-focused and wanted them hitting more long balls, and it didn't work out too well in the end.

[tomd2103]

Missing their main striker for most of the season hasn't helped. Imagine us without Benteke. There'd be nobody to hoof it up to.

I think the Europa League factor has also had an effect on them.  It seems to really hit the league form of teams who don't have the biggest squads.

[Concrete John]

Baggies under Mowbray is often brought up as the 'prime example', but it is in fact a bit of an anomaly. For years the promoted sides have generally played negative, old-fashioned football and it's tended to get them relegated. In recent years, more teams have been coming up from the Championship have been a bit braver and a bit smarter and a bit more modern, and these clubs have started to establish themselves as regulars. The idea that style and results are somehow not just divorced but antithetical is a myth.

I remember someone, not necessarily you, stating how you could see the footballing ethos in Sunderland under Poyet, yet look at their league position now.  Yet Palace will likely survive under Pulis.  So it's more than just an anolomy. 

My point being that the quality of the players is more important than the style they're asked to play.

[Chris Smith]

Missing their main striker for most of the season hasn't helped. Imagine us without Benteke. There'd be nobody to hoof it up to.

They seem to be  a good example of style over substance, keeping possession for 300 passes and ending up on the edge of their own area.

More seriously, it's easy to point to other sides as examples of those that we should emulate but there are far more examples of those that have got it wrong. That have tried to put the roof on before getting the foundations in place.

None of us can know what will happen longer term but it would be perverse to have spent two years trying to stabilise the club to then throw it all out and start again.

[Monty]

It certainly was me, and Palace weren't doing so well under Holloway but Sunderland were a complete and utter calamity under Di Canio. Also, despite Pulis' reputation, they really haven't Stoked up themselves, they just play solid counterattacking football now. Not an aesthetic inspiration, but not the extraordinary horrors of Pulis' style at Stoke either.

Quality of the players more important than the style they play? In every situation? Ask Everton and Man Utd fans about that one.

Chris, what you say about Swansea trying to put the roof on before building the foundations simply couldn't be more incorrect. That passing it around is their foundation, it's actually a pretty sound defensive tactic, and one of basic competence on which to build. You have ignored my point that Laudrup tried to go away from those foundations and it went wrong for him as a result. It's ourselves who don't really have any foundations - we're muddling along, and you can see that when we play well as much as when we play badly.

[Concrete John]

It certainly was me, and Palace weren't doing so well under Holloway but Sunderland were a complete and utter calamity under Di Canio. Also, despite Pulis' reputation, they really haven't Stoked up themselves, they just play solid counterattacking football now. Not an aesthetic inspiration, but not the extraordinary horrors of Pulis' style at Stoke either.

Quality of the players more important than the style they play? In every situation? Ask Everton and Man Utd fans about that one.

Chris, what you say about Swansea trying to put the roof on before building the foundations simply couldn't be more incorrect. That passing it around is their foundation, it's actually a pretty sound defensive tactic, and one of basic competence on which to build. You have ignored my point that Laudrup tried to go away from those foundations and it went wrong for him as a result. It's ourselves who don't really have any foundations - we're muddling along, and you can see that when we play well as much as when we play badly.

Everton are playing differently, but with largely the same results.  Man Utd is a special case as the comparison is with the best manager of his generation getting more out of a set of players than anyone else can.

[Monty]

Everton would have to suffer quite a dip in form not to do significantly better than last season. As for United, come on, that's evidently how they won the title, but a team with Rooney, Van Persie, Kagawa, now Mata should not be playing that badly. Moyes got rid of Ferguson's backroom staff, and now see the harvest.

[Chris Smith]

Monty, that isn't what I said at all, you have misunderstood my post. Swansea were only mentioned because for all of the praise they get yet we are above them in the table, and that is in large part down to managerial changes.

[PeterWithesShin]

Everton got 63 points last season, they are currently on 60 with 7 games to go. It's pretty nailed on they are going to do a fair bit better than last season.

[Monty]

Well fair enough, you weren't saying that about Swansea. However, you're still not quite addressing my point, which is that the reason they're below us in the table is mostly down to their previous manager undermining their hard-won style, and that changing the manager was one of the better things they could have done.

[pauliewalnuts]

The stuff I've read suggests that the reason Laudrup's tenure went wrong is because he was too hands-off and simplistic, and lost sight of the Swansea ways of hard pressing and hard work in training. Garry Monk has got them playing better again, but they're still in trouble of course. Laudrup wanted them to stop being so passing-focused and wanted them hitting more long balls, and it didn't work out too well in the end.

There was a piece in one of the papers shortly before (or after) Laudrup went, outlining what he was like at the club. It had clearly been leaked from within the club, and maybe from someone with an axe to grind, but it didn't really reflect very well on Laudrup.

[pauliewalnuts]

Baggies under Mowbray is often brought up as the 'prime example', but it is in fact a bit of an anomaly. For years the promoted sides have generally played negative, old-fashioned football and it's tended to get them relegated. In recent years, more teams have been coming up from the Championship have been a bit braver and a bit smarter and a bit more modern, and these clubs have started to establish themselves as regulars. The idea that style and results are somehow not just divorced but antithetical is a myth.

I remember someone, not necessarily you, stating how you could see the footballing ethos in Sunderland under Poyet, yet look at their league position now.  Yet Palace will likely survive under Pulis.  So it's more than just an anolomy. 

My point being that the quality of the players is more important than the style they're asked to play.

I'm not really sure what the relevance of the existence of passing teams sometimes doing badly and getting relegated is. Nobody is saying passing the ball is a sure fire route to success.

As others have said, Swansea play a very possession based game, but have been without too many options up front. Hence, they're struggling.

I think the more appropriate question would be as to how many teams do really well whilst playing a game which isn't based on possession. Or, in a more simplistic sense, keeping the ball and passing it to team mates as a way of creating opportunities.

We had a perfect illustration of the limitations of, say, a counter attacking style ourselves under MON. There's a limit to how well you will do with that style, and it's no surprise that, despite throwing ever increasing sums of money at it, MON took us no further than sixth, because the sides which finished above us - including Moyes's Everton - all played football in a more tactically nuanced style, whereas we only had the one way of playing.

[Concrete John]

Baggies under Mowbray is often brought up as the 'prime example', but it is in fact a bit of an anomaly. For years the promoted sides have generally played negative, old-fashioned football and it's tended to get them relegated. In recent years, more teams have been coming up from the Championship have been a bit braver and a bit smarter and a bit more modern, and these clubs have started to establish themselves as regulars. The idea that style and results are somehow not just divorced but antithetical is a myth.

I remember someone, not necessarily you, stating how you could see the footballing ethos in Sunderland under Poyet, yet look at their league position now.  Yet Palace will likely survive under Pulis.  So it's more than just an anolomy. 

My point being that the quality of the players is more important than the style they're asked to play.

I'm not really sure what the relevance of the existence of passing teams sometimes doing badly and getting relegated is. Nobody is saying passing the ball is a sure fire route to success.

As others have said, Swansea play a very possession based game, but have been without too many options up front. Hence, they're struggling.

I think the more appropriate question would be as to how many teams do really well whilst playing a game which isn't based on possession. Or, in a more simplistic sense, keeping the ball and passing it to team mates as a way of creating opportunities.

We had a perfect illustration of the limitations of, say, a counter attacking style ourselves under MON. There's a limit to how well you will do with that style, and it's no surprise that, despite throwing ever increasing sums of money at it, MON took us no further than sixth, because the sides which finished above us - including Moyes's Everton - all played football in a more tactically nuanced style, whereas we only had the one way of playing.

The team's that do really well have the quality of player where you want them with the ball to their feet, plus have the ability to do that regularly and in dangerous areas.  For me that dictates a certain way of playing.  Under MON we needed a quality midfielder and better striker, who would have dictated and influenced the way we play.

My general point being that too much emphasis on us right now is placed upon the style, when in truth what we need is better players.  One will follow the other.