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

[Monty]

Holy hell, how embarrassing are those quotes - and how telling as well.

When a Swansea or a Southampton attacker gets the ball, they know from training who's going to be near them, so it's more a matter of instinct for them to play the quick pass and when and where to move etc. If you tell players to do what they want (sorry, to 'express themselves'), they'll end up looking like Villa attackers when they get the ball: panicky, ponderous, taking too many touches, looking for the run rather than expecting it, not knowing when to pass and holding onto the ball for either too long or not long enough.

Our attacking play looks like a man in a dark room trying to read a map. It looks like a few blind, jittery deer trying to find their way around Spaghetti Junction. It looks like someone just chucking pebbles at a rock. No amount of crosses in training (and, God in heaven, practicing 'getting your crosses in'? Christ alive) is going to improve it. Paulie is right - Bradford should have shown us how much of a chancer the guy is, because, as PWS says, there was no discernible plan when all those attackers went on the pitch - indeed, from Lambert's own words, it seems like his plan is just to have all those attackers on the pitch.

[JUAN PABLO]

The pressure is really going to be on him as soon as we drop in that bottom three.

[Dave]

The fact that we couldn't defend corners to save our lives around the Bradford games time was the biggest problem which directly led to us having to put more forwards on then we'd have liked to.

I still think that had Guzan played the two matches instead of Given we'd have gone though regardless of the stupid attacking tactics.

Not to say that we weren't conceding lots of goals from corners anyway with Guzan in goal, but I think he'd have claimed the ball for at least two of the four goals while Given was rooted to his line. 

[Jimbo]

Our attacking approach at times has been like chucking a load of spanners into an engine and expecting the car to be fixed.

[PeterWithesShin]

The first leg up at Bradford was bad enough. We had four attacking players on the pitch and Delph and Bannan in the midfield and we were getting overran time and time again. He needed to put on another midfielder to shore it up. He threw Graham Burke and Bent on instead.

The only midfield options on the bench though were Ireland and Carruthers, neither of those were likely to shore things up in MF. And Burke was a late sub for Bent who got crocked rather than he threw both on.

[peter w]

The fact that we couldn't defend corners to save our lives around the Bradford games time was the biggest problem which directly led to us having to put more forwards on then we'd have liked to.

I still think that had Guzan played the two matches instead of Given we'd have gone though regardless of the stupid attacking tactics.

Not to say that we weren't conceding lots of goals from corners anyway with Guzan in goal, but I think he'd have claimed the ball for at least two of the four goals while Given was rooted to his line. 

Especially their bloody second. And the first at Villa. FFS. Still raw. Or, it would be if we hadn't kept losing to lower league teams in Cups. Why exactly do we do that?

This is the first season ever where I'm not looking forward to the FA Cup draw. Either a beating or a humiliation. Great options.

[bertlambshank]

The David Brent of football.
His press conferences are turning embarrassing.

[Dave]

The fact that we couldn't defend corners to save our lives around the Bradford games time was the biggest problem which directly led to us having to put more forwards on then we'd have liked to.

I still think that had Guzan played the two matches instead of Given we'd have gone though regardless of the stupid attacking tactics.

Not to say that we weren't conceding lots of goals from corners anyway with Guzan in goal, but I think he'd have claimed the ball for at least two of the four goals while Given was rooted to his line. 

Especially their bloody second. And the first at Villa.

Yup, the very two I had in mind as well.

[Clampy]

The first leg up at Bradford was bad enough. We had four attacking players on the pitch and Delph and Bannan in the midfield and we were getting overran time and time again. He needed to put on another midfielder to shore it up. He threw Graham Burke and Bent on instead.

The only midfield options on the bench though were Ireland and Carruthers, neither of those were likely to shore things up in MF. And Burke was a late sub for Bent who got crocked rather than he threw both on.

Fair point about Ireland and Carruthers although an extra body in there might have helped although that said, Ireland was woeful in the second leg. The other thing I remember about the first game was Joe Bennett getting slaughtered by their winger. He looked terrrified every time they attacked.

[Ads]

We should have won the tie in the first fifteen minutes at Bradford, Benteke missed a hatrick of sitters from corners

[PeterWithesShin]

The first leg up at Bradford was bad enough. We had four attacking players on the pitch and Delph and Bannan in the midfield and we were getting overran time and time again. He needed to put on another midfielder to shore it up. He threw Graham Burke and Bent on instead.

The only midfield options on the bench though were Ireland and Carruthers, neither of those were likely to shore things up in MF. And Burke was a late sub for Bent who got crocked rather than he threw both on.

Fair point about Ireland and Carruthers although an extra body in there might have helped although that said, Ireland was woeful in the second leg. The other thing I remember about the first game was Joe Bennett getting slaughtered by their winger. He looked terrrified every time they attacked.

Must admit that how woeful Ireland was in the home game was part of my thinking regarding shoring up the midfield.

Ultimately a lot of the team (and management) can be blamed for getting knocked out. Vlaar for example completely lost his man for their goal at VP, truly awful defensive work. And did it again later but the Bradford bloke twatted the ball against crossbar iirc.

[rob_bridge]

Winning the game tomorrow would obviously be great. The problem under Lambert is that we've never kicked on after a good result. We have a couple of decent results then go on to lose three or four on the trot.

Yes mid December 2012 was the obvious example. Best Norwich and 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' away and then got smashed to bits by Chelsea, Spuds and Wigan.

[rob_bridge]

The David Brent of football.
His press conferences are turning embarrassing.

Yep he does have that ring about him.

Maybe he wants to be a friend first and a chilled out entertainer second.

[saunders_heroes]

I think the Bradford subs gets exaggerated a little. Needing 2 goals we swapped a midfielder (Bannan) for Bent after more than an hour, and then with 20 left and still needing 2 we took off a defender (Bennett) and stuck on Weimann. When you look at the bench from that night there weren't many other options to score or create the goals we needed.

The criticism i'd give was rather than the actual subs, is that players didn't seem to have defined roles after the second sub. That could be down to the manager, maybe panicking or desperation as we had 20 mins to score 2, or even the players panicking and getting desperate.

The main problem I had with that game was the fact that we played the last 30 odd minutes like as if the 4th official had just raised the board to say there were just 3 minutes of added time to play. We panicked and started hitting long hopeful balls to the front players who were all huddled together in a bunch. It was embarrassing.

[PeterWithesShin]

I think the Bradford subs gets exaggerated a little. Needing 2 goals we swapped a midfielder (Bannan) for Bent after more than an hour, and then with 20 left and still needing 2 we took off a defender (Bennett) and stuck on Weimann. When you look at the bench from that night there weren't many other options to score or create the goals we needed.

The criticism i'd give was rather than the actual subs, is that players didn't seem to have defined roles after the second sub. That could be down to the manager, maybe panicking or desperation as we had 20 mins to score 2, or even the players panicking and getting desperate.

The main problem I had with that game was the fact that we played the last 30 odd minutes like as if the 4th official had just raised the board to say there were just 3 minutes of added time to play. We panicked and started hitting long hopeful balls to the front players who were all huddled together in a bunch. It was embarrassing.

That's exactly what I mean by them having defined roles. Rather than for example player a) dropping deeper, player b) drifting wider and so on, it was like a school playground game of '3 and in' with everyone thinking only of scoring and not too much thought of creating chances, or even having sustained pressure.