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

[Isa]

How far?

It's a 72 page thread.

I was genuinely interested as to why what managers have done in the lower leagues doesn't matter. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounds like it's not being considered because you've decided it's not worth considering.

Which is a bit convenient.

Like I said, though, was interested to see the post, as I may well be jumping to the wrong conclusion.

My post on page 65 of this thread. Apologies, I should've really have just said that on my last post.

To claify, I never claimed what a manager achieves in the lower-leagues 'doesn't matter'. Rather it doesn't translate to how good a manager is at the top-level.

[pauliewalnuts]

Ah, ok, got you.

i agree it's not necessarily a translation from "good in lower leagues = good in top flight", but at the same time, I think it's pretty important. More than anything - and this is depressing to admit - it's important in terms of being able to work with meagre resources, which is something we need in our manager these days.

There are plenty of managers with far more illustrious records than Lamberts, but who have only ever managed in the top flight, with lots of money to spend.

It all adds to the skillbase.

[brian green]

Good word that "skillbase".   Must try to work it into a few bollockings.

The football league has a Skrill base but that is just a feeble air shot at a pun.

[Dave]

Ah, ok, got you.

i agree it's not necessarily a translation from "good in lower leagues = good in top flight", but at the same time, I think it's pretty important. More than anything - and this is depressing to admit - it's important in terms of being able to work with meagre resources, which is something we need in our manager these days.

Also, we have to be able to pick our manager on some sort of record.

If we accept that we're not going to be picking from Champions League winners then we have to evaluate success in other areas.

When we chose him, Lambert seemed to tick the boxes of pretty much everyone on here. 

[Monty]

The thing is, it's as important to us how a manager achieved his record as it is that he simply did it. Plenty of managers have boofed their way into the top flight, but not many have passed their way in. Now, Lambert is kind of in the middle, but his record does not necessarily show a guy with passing in his DNA, and I think we ought to have looked for more of an idealogue to stamp a way of playing on the club. Such a manager would have been limited in his own ways, but his strengths would have been more aligned to our need to address our weaknesses.

[pauliewalnuts]

I think that probably has - at least psychologically - a lot to do with the fact he came after McLeish.

It's hard not to look like Guardiola by comparison when you're replacing the Scottish Egil Olsen

[Concrete John]

I think it's also that after changing managers so frequently people want some stability and understand that the club also NEEDS that stability.  Married with the fact that our 'buy them young' transfer policy needs some time to see fruition, then Lambert is getting a lot of patience.  At least by some.

[Chris Smith]

I think that probably has - at least psychologically - a lot to do with the fact he came after McLeish.

It's hard not to look like Guardiola by comparison when you're replacing the Scottish Egil Olsen

He came after the MON flounce, the McDonald/Houllier/McAllister fiasco and the McLeish disaster. On a purely pragmatic level he's done the job required, tying to create order from the remnants of that muddled approach would take anyone time.

[Monty]

Chris, I think the one thing we cannot really say about him is that he has solved the muddle. If anything, he has exacerbated it because he isn't the guy to imprint a style on the team. He's a pragmatist, a reactionary, going from game to game and playing in a way only to adapt to the opposition. That's fine, and you'd be a fool not to plan for your opponents, but it's left us drifting and without identity, aimless when it's up to us to force the initiative.

[supertom]

One thing annoys me about Lambert is that fact that he's not sorted our midfield or done much at all to even rectify it. He often says he won't buy for the sake of it, but he's proven just the opposite at times. You could argue, though he scouted Kozak for a while, he wasn't desperately needed. More so was the Holt deal. Though it's temporary and something of a quick fix, could he not have tried to make a similar signing in midfield? Beyond just looking at Hoolahan that is. We're so short of options in the middle and it looks a complete mess. This is in part effecting Lamberts need to constantly chop and change his side. One thing always remains and that is a midfield that lacks balance and quality. He's working around a severe weakness and it's the most important part of a side because it directly affects both your offence and defence.

[Concrete John]

One thing annoys me about Lambert is that fact that he's not sorted our midfield or done much at all to even rectify it. He often says he won't buy for the sake of it, but he's proven just the opposite at times. You could argue, though he scouted Kozak for a while, he wasn't desperately needed. More so was the Holt deal. Though it's temporary and something of a quick fix, could he not have tried to make a similar signing in midfield? Beyond just looking at Hoolahan that is. We're so short of options in the middle and it looks a complete mess. This is in part effecting Lamberts need to constantly chop and change his side. One thing always remains and that is a midfield that lacks balance and quality. He's working around a severe weakness and it's the most important part of a side because it directly affects both your offence and defence.

It's one criticism of Lambert I do agree with.

It's all very well pointing at the Kiyotake interest, the Hoolahan bids and the this £8m player we're supposed to have bid for in January, but his job isn't to try and fix it - it's to actually fix it!
 

[brontebilly]

I think that probably has - at least psychologically - a lot to do with the fact he came after McLeish.

It's hard not to look like Guardiola by comparison when you're replacing the Scottish Egil Olsen

He came after the MON flounce, the McDonald/Houllier/McAllister fiasco and the McLeish disaster. On a purely pragmatic level he's done the job required, tying to create order from the remnants of that muddled approach would take anyone time.

If the primary objective when he took charge was to slash the wage bill and keep us in the league, then he has managed that but only barely.

I dont think we have improved at all this season, guess its a bit subjective but certainly the form and style of football played at the end of last season is a distant memory.

I dont think he has created order, a new manager coming in will have to gut the squad once again. Our football is utterly atrocious so a new manager will have to spend an awful amount of time implementing a half decent style of play.

Think he was extremely naive in his management of the bomb squad/high earners. A cleverer manager needing cash would have given Hutton, Given, Ireland, Bent every opportunity to at least prove themselves competent premier league players before flogging them for a few quid. As it is, we will get next to nothing for them so he has less to invest in the squad.

[Ads]

How many more chances did Ireland need exactly before proving he was a waste of skin? See likewise for Hutton too.

[not3bad]

Ireland certainly had plenty of chances with Lambert, and so did Given.  Bent is a debatable one - Lambert made him captain at first but seemed to quicly realise that Bent wasn't going to suit the way he wanted to play. He bombed Hutton out after one half of a friendly, but I don't think you'll find many people who would agree he deserved more of a chance than he got.

[Mister E]

One thing annoys me about Lambert is that fact that he's not sorted our midfield or done much at all to even rectify it. He often says he won't buy for the sake of it, but he's proven just the opposite at times. You could argue, though he scouted Kozak for a while, he wasn't desperately needed. More so was the Holt deal. Though it's temporary and something of a quick fix, could he not have tried to make a similar signing in midfield? Beyond just looking at Hoolahan that is. We're so short of options in the middle and it looks a complete mess. This is in part effecting Lamberts need to constantly chop and change his side. One thing always remains and that is a midfield that lacks balance and quality. He's working around a severe weakness and it's the most important part of a side because it directly affects both your offence and defence.

Strongly agree with this - the midfield is at the heart of all things in a football team: they can make the defence and the attack look either very good or very poor, and our inconsistency is a direct function of our flaky MF performances.
And, if it is so blindingly obvious why has PL not addressed this?