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

[supertom]

If we were a solid side comfortably between 11th-8th for a season or two, it puts us in a more solid base to then begin the process of changing our football philosophy and bringing in someone akin to Koeman, who whoever.

If we're floating around 15th-17th every season and tried to turn into a footballing club over a summer we'd almost certainly go down the following season I think. We'll inevitably see an initial struggle I think.

So I'd honestly take Pulis for 18 months to just make us solid and not least more effective at home. At the very least he'd teach us how to take a decent throw-in. His football at Palace was better than it was at Stoke too. He's not a complete dinosaur and he's Guardiola compared to Lamberk.

I'm more interested in results to be honest. Short of a takeover and the ability to to buy 5-6 really decent footballers to make instilling a movement and passing game more seamless, then it's going to be very difficult. Pulis would get us results and he's also treat us to better football. Not brilliant football and sometimes ugly, but lets face it, Lamberts football is pig muck ugly. It fell off the ugly tree and hit every single branch on the way down...twice.

[rob_bridge]

Lambert will keep us in the league anyway. Pulis might get us a few places higher, he might not, but if we're talking about long term solutions to the on field problems; lack of attacking plan, poor home form, ball retention, goals,  etc, then he isn't the answer. Neither is Moyes.

Ads - who is?

[Ads]

Somebody with a an idea about how to set up and approach games that is different from O'Neill, McLiesh and Lambert.

[Phil from the upper holte]

I'd say we've only survived the last few seasons as the teams below us have been worse, you can't go on like that forever

[Chris Smith]

If we were a solid side comfortably between 11th-8th for a season or two, it puts us in a more solid base to then begin the process of changing our football philosophy and bringing in someone akin to Koeman, who whoever.

If we're floating around 15th-17th every season and tried to turn into a footballing club over a summer we'd almost certainly go down the following season I think. We'll inevitably see an initial struggle I think.

So I'd honestly take Pulis for 18 months to just make us solid and not least more effective at home. At the very least he'd teach us how to take a decent throw-in. His football at Palace was better than it was at Stoke too. He's not a complete dinosaur and he's Guardiola compared to Lamberk.

I'm more interested in results to be honest. Short of a takeover and the ability to to buy 5-6 really decent footballers to make instilling a movement and passing game more seamless, then it's going to be very difficult. Pulis would get us results and he's also treat us to better football. Not brilliant football and sometimes ugly, but lets face it, Lamberts football is pig muck ugly. It fell off the ugly tree and hit every single branch on the way down...twice.

Of course he's a complete dinosaur, Palace were just Stoke lite because he didn't have time to bring in his own players.

The way people are talking you would assume that the bloke could guarantee improvement but I think it could just easily go the other way. If we are going to make a change, which I don't for a second think we are, can we not at least set our sights on somebody with more strings to his bow than trying to be Wimbledon 1985.

[frankmosswasmyuncle]

If we drop in the bottom 3, we wont get out.

Lambert just hasn't got the right mind set at the moment and he is out of his depth.

I honestly thought he was the best we could get when we got him and
Was looking forward to some exciting football , win and lose but he's proved me wrong.

This.

[Clampy]

Whilst I can understand people thinking Pulis would come in and make us harder to beat (which he probably would), Chris also has a point. Stoke were truly truly dreadful to watch. I suppose it could be a case of careful what you wish for.

[paul_e]

Why is there an assumption that a manager who tries to play decent football will have to sacrifice results though.

That what I don't get, anyone advocating Pulis is doing so on this huge assumption that Pulis will get the results to keep us in the league but someone Tuchel wouldn't be able to do that.  I just don't understand that logic.  Yes Pulis did well saving Palace last season and deserves some credit for it but the year before that he got 3 wins in 18 - http://www.statto.com/football/teams/stoke-city/2012-2013/results - look at that record from January onwards, is that really the work of a tactical mastermind who would guarantee our survival?

The basics of pass and move and structured attacking play can be trained so long as you've got players with the basic footballing ability to back it up, in most cases we have that so I don't buy the myth that we'd have to sign half a team to change our play style, given our central defence and midfield options I'd say we're actually closer to having the right squad for that than we are having a Pulis squad.

[pauliewalnuts]

People keep saying "Pulis for six or twelve months would suit me", under the impression that he'd keep us up.

Why on earth do they think he'd be happy just to be here on a temporary basis? To appoint Pulis, Randy would have sacked another manager, ie the current one, why would anyone think he'd be in even more of a rush to get shot of Pulis?

If we take a new manager on, expect him to be here for at least 2 or 3 years.

There is absolutely no way I'd want my club to have the same association with everything that is bad in the game that Stoke City did.

[David_Nab]

Also given Lambert only had one season in the Premier League before joining us it's not like you can point to any achievements to back up the case he can turn things around at the highest level.Plenty of managers have been promoted and kept a side up at the first attempt , then slipped into failure after.

[paul_e]

I'd say we've only survived the last few seasons as the teams below us have been worse, you can't go on like that forever

Surely every single team in the laegue finishes where they do because they're better than the teams below them, it has gone on forever and will always be the same.  We can't plan for there to be 3 worse teams every year but it's not like we're fluking out because that happens to be the case.

[Richard E]

Pulis got Stoke to an FA Cup Final and into Europe and they never really looked in any serious danger of going down with him in charge. I'd take anyone, even Ian Huntley or Jimmy Saville, if they could do that for us at the moment.

[aev]

Re Pulis at Stoke - it could also be that he just got stale and the players get bored of listening to the same old stuff....hence is poor results towards the end?

Changing managers is a gamble , but so too is sticking with a manager who seems unable to turn things around.

What about Laudrup?

[Drummond]

So, if you don't want Lambert and you don't want Pulis. Who do you want?

[Clampy]

Re Pulis at Stoke - it could also be that he just got stale and the players get bored of listening to the same old stuff....hence is poor results towards the end?

Changing managers is a gamble , but so too is sticking with a manager who seems unable to turn things around.

What about Laudrup?

Laudrup's apparently managing over in the middle east.