I'm surprised at the reactions tbh, I thought this was a place for discussion. Oh, but now I realise...it's half term!
Well, that would be a convincing argument, if you hadn't chosen us at our weakest moment of the season in terms of squad strength (and Sunderland at one of their strongest). There's £14m (Kozak and Benteke) unaccounted for which, even when playing, didn't stop us looking for the most part horrifically one dimensional. By the way, that's £14m which cannot really be expected to play together except in kitchen-sink chucking final ten minute desperation (or, 'doing a Lambert') - how is that prudent use of such limited finances? It's not. It's the action of a man who played Grant Holt and Steve Morison up front together at Norwich quite regularly, in order to chunt long balls at them. This goes back a long way. What Poyet did was quite extraordinary, and when you set him up against Lambert it's an embarrassing no-contest.Lambert does, as you tenuously put it, have it in him to want to play better football, which as you say makes him better than McLeish. However, that also makes him MON, who too wanted to play better football, but whose limitations were such that he couldn't achieve it despite huge amounts of money being chucked at the team. He got results, but he should have done better and was held back by his stubborn adherence to a rigid 4-4-2, counter-attacking, overrating speed and strength over skill, having not the first clue about modern methods of pass-and-move training and generally boofing it all the pissing time. Lambert is more flexible in formation, and doesn't share MON's winger addiction (more's the pity), but being stuck in the 90s isn't all that much better than being stuck in the 70s, and he exhibits all he same traits otherwise.Like MON, Lambert's team can look exciting if given space into which to play. Basically, on the break. He's a reactive manager, and the difference between a defensive performance and a counterattacking one is often no more than getting the breaks to escape from the back. However, give us a massed defence to break down and his teams have no plan, so we end up with the long balls into a congested space where it's almost certain not to work.This is why we're horrendous at home - a number ten would help (even if he only appears to have heard of them yesterday), but what would help much more is actually looking like there's a plan when we have the ball. If you look at Rodgers' teams (interesting how you skipped over him, but we'll come to that), there's real purpose in possession. That's because Rodgers trains them maniacally in what to do when you get the ball, where to move to depending on where you are in relation to the player, one and two touch passing to keep the ball moving - you know, practicing. MON got them to jog around the pitch and play a five-a-side, if he was there at all. Lambert's probably in between, but there's absolutely no evidence on the pitch that there's been significant work on the training ground. The players look lost, unguided by any helping hand, and that hand should be the managers. When they do break forward (usually Delph) all the running off the ball looks painfully improvised, which slows us down two-fold: firstly, the player has to decide where to move instead of just knowing by second-nature, as training would have helped him to acquire; and secondly, the player with the ball has to look for his teammates before making the pass, instead of trusting to the plan. This is the case all the time, and it's agony to watch.Forget the money, because I've already said I think Lambert's actually good in the transfer market (though a good scout doesn't necessarily make a good manager) - is Ashley Westwood really a worse footballer, on the ball, than Lee twatting Cattermole? Because when Westwood arrived his off-the-ball anticipation and movement was fantastic, I thought we'd found a bargain Petrov, but two years of Lambert and he looks like he's trying to stodge his way through a bog with lead shoes without a map, whereas the lump Cattermole is moving into space like Busquets. Who's fault is this?Please don't tell me that I need to 'really look' at what we've got right now, believe me, I've been really fucking looking for two years. And you know, you say your posts have to be long because you need the 'substance', but actually I'm afraid all I read is a lot of bluff, quite a lot of cliche, much over-simplifying and innumerable half-truths of a pretty mendacious nature. You say 'Baker costs us twenty goals a year' - then why did he keep playing him? Clark was always available but practically never given the chance, because despite being better on the ball he doesn't do Big Physical Things, and Lambert just loves those unreservedly. You just say, for instance, of Martinez that 'well, he got Wigan relegated', neglecting of course to mention that he kept Wigan alive way beyond their life-expectancy and won them the FA Cup. You say these managers had more time at their clubs? Well, Poyet hadn't, and had to work with players who'd been exposed to Paulo di Canio for several months, and now look at them. Lambert's had two years and the football is getting worse - not 'more solid', as you keep saying, because we've either had the same or a worse season than last year, and we've just been worse to watch. Lambert needs time? The more time he's had, the worse it's got.There's more than one way to play football, but none of them involve honestly thinking that long-balls, at home, in a winnable match, against a massed defence, are a real option. Lambert appears to think so, and it'll always, always, always hold him back no matter how many bargains he finds.This essay shall be the last time I respond to you, unless you can come up with a new point better than 'you don't understand, simpleton, hark at my superior cod-economics!'. Over and out.
Half term? Oh of course. Yep, we're the childish ones. Because we're the ones who respond to every criticism with wearyingly endless essays, peppered all the way through with phrases like 'if you'd actually tried to understand/read what I posted'. I tried. I read. I understood. It was one of those essays which is a good deal easier to write than to read, but I trudged through. And I gave you what I thought was a detailed - perhaps over-detailed - response. And you come back to me and say 'well, you just didn't understand it'? And then call me childish? I'm out. You can't be argued with because it's so much more important to you that a bunch of people on the internet are convinced of the genius of your rightness than it is to actually argue the point through. As such, there's no point in trying. Ta-ta.
*sigh* Guess I'm back in then. Being called pompous by you is funny in ways which it wouldn't be worth my time trying to explain to you. As for Lambert apparently having heard about the number ten five seconds ago, it was the incredibly cringeworthy way he said 'I call them number tens. Number tens I call 'em, me. You can call them what you like, but me? Number tens.' Unlike everyone else in the world for the last seventy years then, Paul.He's a simplistic football thinker. Like you, in fact. But at least he can still spot a player, whereas your best attributes appear to be quick touch-typing skills and proficiency with an abacus.
I do like the fact that we can only discuss teams that Rolta wants us to discuss. Try throwing in teams like Stoke, Fulham and Sheffield United and the argument turns to 'well it must be half term'.
Completely agree about the devaluing of the bomb-squad. It was a bit like trying to sell something on eBay by posting a photo of it in the bin.
No please, let's have it. Judging by your average post-length I'm intrigued to see how you'd attempt 'wit'.
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Albrighton Going to Leicester (Read 94969 times)
