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

[Toronto Villa]

The lack of structue comes from the sheer volatility and change of the past few years across the club. I'm not saying Lambert doesn't have a large part to play in this over the past 18 months, but part of it is down to attempt to change the culture at the club. If you look at the Chelsea win, or even the first 20 minutes against Stoke, everything went and was going to plan. The fact that for the other 70 minutes against Stoke the wheels fell off is down to the players and manager for not knowing how to fix it. But it's no different to Wener and how his team played at Chelsea last week. Sometimes the wheel just fall off.

Again, there's a lot he can improve upon, but when it has gone right it has gone very right and much of that is a constituent of belief and maturity at all levels. That comes with time and better players, who don't have those unpredictable fluctuations in behaviour.

[Monty]

I don't think that quite washes. The volatility and change of the past few years has happened to the club, but most of the playing staff are his and he's had nearly two years now. Managers need time for their ideas to work out, but you can often see what their ideas are early on. Look at Poyet at Sunderland - it's not all going his way, but you can see exactly what kind of manager he is (and if it weren't for Di Canio's amazingly rubbish tenure they wouldn't be in trouble at all). Even with Lambert you could tell against West Ham that he was a better-inclined than his predecessor ("we're Aston Villa, we're passing the ball"), but we haven't exactly moved beyond that level though.

I would agree that when it goes right it's down to belief levels and the players' confidence, because it doesn't appear to have anything to do with tactics. We rely to an unnecessary degree on these flashes of inspiration and momentum, and have no foundations in place from a system of play. You can see it when they get the ball - Delph, say, will receive the ball after ten seconds of furious arm-waving, take about four touches in all directions looking for an option, is perhaps forced to beat an opponent, sometimes twice, then plays a pass to a centre forward, back to goal on the edge of the penalty area, and repeat (Delph has here made a run into traffic which has served no purpose).

The point is there's no zip, no one-and-two touch, no automatically knowing where a team-mate will be, all of which teams on low budgets can do with a bit of rigor and focus in training. It's increasingly becoming obvious that the idea that these traits in a team are the reserve of the expensively-assembled world class is nonsense, and anyone can replicate it to some degree of success at their own level. We don't know if our players aren't good enough to do these eminently teachable things, but it would be a surprise if they weren't while still being able to turn in individual performances of the quality they've shown from time to time. They look like perfectly good players - a credit to Lambert's eye for a transfer - doing their best on their own without much practice in how to play together.

[brian green]

What you say Monty is spot on.   Yes, you must pass the ball but there has to be movement off the ball.   Players have to support the ball carrier otherwise, like you say, the ball carrier runs into traffic and it goes back to the goal keeper and the ball gets hoofed.   We were so outplayed in the air against Stoke but we still persisted with lofted passes.   The way you get the zip into your play is to know what your team mate wants to do and help him do it by making yourself available for the pass.   I still think it is all down to the coaching or more exactly the lack of it.   Movement off the ball, it is so basic.

[mattjpa]

Heres the thing; (and I'd love the 165 people at the top of this poll to remember this) Lambert has lucked out on Benteke. It is not tactics or training, its not taking us in the right direction or moving us forward. The squad isnt improving slowly, there is nobody else in our team (found and signed by Lambert) who would get near the arsenal (as an example) first 11. everytime we look in trouble or desperately out of form, Benteke creates a goal out of nothing or hits a bit of form, or puts away a penalty under immense pressure. He inspires those around him and fills them and the crowd with confidence. When he is out of form or unfit or plain just cant be arsed we turn to toffee. I know there are a few occasions when it is someone else who has one of the days like Delph or Gabby but it is extremely few and far between.

Benteke is in form at the moment. I think he will carry that form into the world cup, be surrounded by stars making him look even better and we will probably get a 25-30m bid we cant afford to turn down.  So what then? Mark my words, the 3-4 better class players we sign with the money will not give us what he gives us. Lambert will get found out after he has gone because Helenius/Kozak/Holt/Weimann/Gabby may all be good to varying degrees but none are world class and able to win a game on their own.

The way we are set up to play, the counter attack football, the inability to prize open lesser teams camping behind the ball.....If Benteke leaves we either need to totally change it or I fear we will go down next year.

[villajk]

Is it possible to change my vote on this?  I pressed the wrong 'button' the other day.

[Legion]

Amended so votes can be changed.

[PeterWithesShin]

Bit harsh to say he lucked out on Benteke considering he bought him for big money.

[Monty]

Bit harsh to say he lucked out on Benteke considering he bought him for big money.

I agree. I think he's very good on transfers, actually - nobody's perfect and he's had his clangers, but I think that Westwood, Bacuna, Vlaar, Okore and Bertrand really are good signings. In a way, they're better players than they look, and that's at least in part down to Lambert's great flaw, namely his tactics.

[Toronto Villa]

Bit harsh to say he lucked out on Benteke considering he bought him for big money.

I agree. I think he's very good on transfers, actually - nobody's perfect and he's had his clangers, but I think that Westwood, Bacuna, Vlaar, Okore and Bertrand really are good signings. In a way, they're better players than they look, and that's at least in part down to Lambert's great flaw, namely his tactics.

thing is when they play badly it is down to Lambert's tactics and when they play well it's in spite of them. That's how it always looks to me when Lambert's tactics are challenged. I think the players have bad days as does the manager, but when they have come together, and against some big teams we have looked superb on occasion. I think a more balanced position would be that be it the manager or the players they have both been inconsistent.

[PeterWithesShin]

I'm not convinced by the coaching as we do so many basics wrong too often. Look at how shit we are at something simple like throw-ins, or even how often we get caught out by a quick short corner. What we don't know is if that is based on Lambert's tactics, the coaches not doing their job properly or the players just being dopey gits who switch off. Quite possibly a bit of all 3.

[Monty]

Bit harsh to say he lucked out on Benteke considering he bought him for big money.

I agree. I think he's very good on transfers, actually - nobody's perfect and he's had his clangers, but I think that Westwood, Bacuna, Vlaar, Okore and Bertrand really are good signings. In a way, they're better players than they look, and that's at least in part down to Lambert's great flaw, namely his tactics.

thing is when they play badly it is down to Lambert's tactics and when they play well it's in spite of them. That's how it always looks to me when Lambert's tactics are challenged. I think the players have bad days as does the manager, but when they have come together, and against some big teams we have looked superb on occasion. I think a more balanced position would be that be it the manager or the players they have both been inconsistent.

That would indeed be unfair and I'm not saying that really. Lambert's only tactics, his default tactics, work well against teams like Chelsea and some of his specific plans, like against Liverpool, also work well. Bacuna is playing well at the moment because Lambert had the foresight to move him to right back. He's not totally deficient, he's just short-termist and reactive, and hasn't shown himself able to build a real style in the way that other managers have.

[Toronto Villa]

I'm not convinced by the coaching as we do so many basics wrong too often. Look at how shit we are at something simple like throw-ins, or even how often we get caught out by a quick short corner. What we don't know is if that is based on Lambert's tactics, the coaches not doing their job properly or the players just being dopey gits who switch off. Quite possibly a bit of all 3.

I don't disagree but options 2 and 3 aren't ever given as much weight as Lambert's tactics. I think you're right it is a combination of all three, which you would hope and expect will improve over time. A lot like our defending has. Last season we were making so many fundamental errors. Schoolboy stuff. But then he hires a coach to address much of it and there has been a marked improvement (last Sunday aside). Now some will say it is all because of the coach and never give Lambert any credit, and some might say it is a combination of the coach and players, but also that Lambert being open minded enough in seeing the need to hire a coach. It's not all one thing, but generally a combination of factors.

[Toronto Villa]

Bit harsh to say he lucked out on Benteke considering he bought him for big money.

I agree. I think he's very good on transfers, actually - nobody's perfect and he's had his clangers, but I think that Westwood, Bacuna, Vlaar, Okore and Bertrand really are good signings. In a way, they're better players than they look, and that's at least in part down to Lambert's great flaw, namely his tactics.

thing is when they play badly it is down to Lambert's tactics and when they play well it's in spite of them. That's how it always looks to me when Lambert's tactics are challenged. I think the players have bad days as does the manager, but when they have come together, and against some big teams we have looked superb on occasion. I think a more balanced position would be that be it the manager or the players they have both been inconsistent.

That would indeed be unfair and I'm not saying that really. Lambert's only tactics, his default tactics, work well against teams like Chelsea and some of his specific plans, like against Liverpool, also work well. Bacuna is playing well at the moment because Lambert had the foresight to move him to right back. He's not totally deficient, he's just short-termist and reactive, and hasn't shown himself able to build a real style in the way that other managers have.

No, he's certainly been found wanting, and that is as much to do with learning, adapting, change as it is in considering and accepting he's made errors. But he has done things right and well, which ultimately I'm sure he wants more of. Regarding Poyet, there might be a style that he has and a more appealing way of playing, but what good is it if they go down? Last night they only started to play in the second half of a game they needed to get something from. They could have 5 down by the time they scored. They might be aesthetically more pleasing than us, but I bet no Sunderland fan will be happy if they are playing Barnsley next season.

[Monty]

I think it's as certain as you can be about such things that Sunderland would not be in the predicament they are had they started the season with Poyet rather than the catastrophic Di Canio. The fact that they have any chance at all - and maybe the best chance of the current bottom three - is testament to the quality of the work Poyet's done. They won't play brilliantly every game, and Liverpool at Anfield is currently something of a toughie and not something to beat them up with I think, but the general improvement there has been startling and obviously down to him to a considerable degree.

As for Lambert, I'm sure he does want more of the good stuff. That's why he gets more leeway than McLeish, and why I marginally prefer him to, say, Moyes (I have a weakness for idealists over pragmatists, I suppose). I just don't think there's any evidence really that he knows how to achieve his aims, nor that he'll change into someone who does anytime soon. It makes me sad to say this, and I latch onto any evidence to the contrary such as those twenty minutes against Norwich, but overall I think the aggregate against is overwhelming.

[villajk]

Amended so votes can be changed.

Thanks, Legion.