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

[Mister E]

... the manager needs to set the style ... Lambert doesn't have this ... we need someone to stamp some definite ideas on the team.

This, I think, is the nub of the issue with our manager. In 18 months, he has failed to generate a consistently-good football style whether winning or losing.
Maybe Brian is right that Lambert is just thick; or maybe he got lucky in his previous jobs. Or, maybe, he has not been given the resources to really make a difference at VP.

[Gareth]

... the manager needs to set the style ... Lambert doesn't have this ... we need someone to stamp some definite ideas on the team.

This, I think, is the nub of the issue with our manager. In 18 months, he has failed to generate a consistently-good football style whether winning or losing.
Maybe Brian is right that Lambert is just thick; or maybe he got lucky in his previous jobs. Or, maybe, he has not been given the resources to really make a difference at VP.

It's probably a mixture of all of them...I've lost count of the amount of games in the last 3 years where you sit at kick off then the next noteworthy event to get you on your feet is half time

[Chinchilla Bathhouse]

... the manager needs to set the style ... Lambert doesn't have this ... we need someone to stamp some definite ideas on the team.

This, I think, is the nub of the issue with our manager. In 18 months, he has failed to generate a consistently-good football style whether winning or losing.
Maybe Brian is right that Lambert is just thick; or maybe he got lucky in his previous jobs. Or, maybe, he has not been given the resources to really make a difference at VP.

I think it's extremely harsh to say he's thick.  I don't think you achieve what he has achieved if you're thick, equally I don't think you win successive promotions through sheer luck.  It's easy to forget that he's still relatively young and inexperienced at this level, and he's still learning on the job; I expect it would make a difference if he had zillions to spend as better players would probably compensate for his deficiencies, but instead he's tasked with rebuilding a whole squad and turning a bunch of relative rookies into a consistent and cohesive unit.  That'd be a tough job for a manager with twice Lambert's experience.   

[Monty]

I agree that I think it would be harsh to call him thick. There are plenty of charlatanesque managers I'd call thick - Paul 'Shoot' Ince comes to mind - but Lambert I don't think is. But he may well be significantly limited, and that's where the evidence points at the moment.

[Isa]

I think it's extremely harsh to say he's thick.  I don't think you achieve what he has achieved if you're thick, equally I don't think you win successive promotions through sheer luck.

Without trying to take away from the fantastic job he did at Norwich, it is worth remembering that the lower leagues are a completely different animal to the top-flight. There is far less emphasis on the tactical side of the game and individual quality and rather on workrate, team spirit, motivation, physicality etc. This is why often you'll see what are thought of as stronger teams, especially those just demoted from the Premier League, really struggle whereas pretty unspectacular teams like McDermott's Reading, Mackay's Cardiff and (dare I say it) Lambert's Norwich can get promoted. So while managerial success in the lower leagues shouldn't be scoffed at, it means very little until backed up by a similar display of capability at this level. As has already been alluded to, the likes of George Burley, Paul Jewell, Owen Coyle would epitomise this point.

While 'thick' may be a slightly abrasive way of describing Lambert. He is certainly tactical deficient which I'm sure is what the poster meant anyway. This weekend I watched both the Man City-Chelsea and Arsenal-Liverpool games. Both finished in contrast to the same fixtures that were played recently and the reason for this is that both Pellegrini and Wenger had analysed, recognised and solved the problems from their recent defeats to Chelsea and Liverpool respectively. Most worryingly with Lambert, is that he hasn't shown he can do this during his time here. I mean this is a guy that 18 months plus down the line still can't fathom how to set the team up at home for goodness sake! It is for this reason that I have no faith in him or his 'project'. The fact is that tactically inept managers automatically create a glass ceiling for themselves and unfortunately no amount of money given to them will change this as we already know from O'Neill's tenure here.

[ChicagoLion]

I think it's extremely harsh to say he's thick.  I don't think you achieve what he has achieved if you're thick, equally I don't think you win successive promotions through sheer luck.

Without trying to take away from the fantastic job he did at Norwich, it is worth remembering that the lower leagues are a completely different animal to the top-flight. There is far less emphasis on the tactical side of the game and individual quality and rather on workrate, team spirit, motivation, physicality etc. This is why often you'll see what are thought of as stronger teams, especially those just demoted from the Premier League, really struggle whereas pretty unspectacular teams like McDermott's Reading, Mackay's Cardiff and (dare I say it) Lambert's Norwich can get promoted. So while managerial success in the lower leagues shouldn't be scoffed at, it means very little until backed up by a similar display of capability at this level. As has already been alluded to, the likes of George Burley, Paul Jewell, Owen Coyle would epitomise this point.

While 'thick' may be a slightly abrasive way of describing Lambert. He is certainly tactical deficient which I'm sure is what the poster meant anyway. This weekend I watched both the Man City-Chelsea and Arsenal-Liverpool games. Both finished in contrast to the same fixtures that were played recently and the reason for this is that both Pellegrini and Wenger had analysed, recognised and solved the problems from their recent defeats to Chelsea and Liverpool respectively. Most worryingly with Lambert, is that he hasn't shown he can do this during his time here. I mean this is a guy that 18 months plus down the line still can't fathom how to set the team up at home for goodness sake! It is for this reason that I have no faith in him or his 'project'. The fact is that tactically inept managers automatically create a glass ceiling for themselves and unfortunately no amount of money given to them will change this as we already know from O'Neill's tenure here.

Brilliant observation, great post, well done.

[Ads]

Your argument in the first paragraph is undermined by Lambert's Norwich coming up and finishing 12th. They proved they were more than capable. The categorisation of him with Geroge Burley is therefore a false one.

[SamTheMouse]

As long as he doesn't get us relegated, I don't see any point in not giving him another season at least. I mean, it's not like we're going to be troubling the European spots is it? So we might as well aim for continuity and see what happens.

I wish he'd sign a couple of better players in the middle of the park, though. It would make things look a whole lot rosier.

[eastie]

Your argument in the first paragraph is undermined by Lambert's Norwich coming up and finishing 12th. They proved they were more than capable. The categorisation of him with Geroge Burley is therefore a false one.

Yes , George burley took Ipswich to 5th place and Europe in their 1st season after promotion.

[richard moore]

My biggest concern about Paul Lambert is not his sincerity or his loyalty or his commitment to hard work or his ambition or his honesty - none of those things, and like TSM I think he is a good and decent man.   My concern is for his intelligence.   Every time he gets suckered by an opposing manager, the doubts creep back in.

Maybe I was a bit harsh calling him 'thick', it's just my frustration at the mediocrity we are mired in. Perhaps Brian puts it better, and I rather liked 'significantly limited' too. I actually think there are very few bright managers out there, and certainly Lambert is a million miles from that for me

[richard moore]

Actually, just realised I'm apologising when it wasn't me who called him 'thick'! Though I have in other threads so my reflections on that being rather harsh still pertain

[eastie]

Actually, just realised I'm apologising when it wasn't me who called him 'thick'! Though I have in other threads so my reflections on that being rather harsh still pertain

Not so sure it's his intelligence but possibly a trait we have seen with his and our previous boss - stubbornness.

[Ads]

Your argument in the first paragraph is undermined by Lambert's Norwich coming up and finishing 12th. They proved they were more than capable. The categorisation of him with Geroge Burley is therefore a false one.

Yes , George burley took Ipswich to 5th place and Europe in their 1st season after promotion.

And then back down again.

[eastie]

Your argument in the first paragraph is undermined by Lambert's Norwich coming up and finishing 12th. They proved they were more than capable. The categorisation of him with Geroge Burley is therefore a false one.

Yes , George burley took Ipswich to 5th place and Europe in their 1st season after promotion.

And then back down again.

Your point being that lambert and Norwich had proved they were more than capable by finishing 12 th in their 1st season up - burley and Ipswich finished 5th and yet still went down the next season .
There is no guarantee lambert would have kept Norwich up last season had he stayed there - many teams have gone down in their 2nd season in the premiership .

[aj2k77]

Your argument in the first paragraph is undermined by Lambert's Norwich coming up and finishing 12th. They proved they were more than capable. The categorisation of him with Geroge Burley is therefore a false one.

.