Jump to content
Cherry Blue

Championship 2018-19

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Silas said:

Are we supposed to be impressed by the 4.5k.

Just you've mentioned it twice now, with no real relevance to any of the other words on this page. 

We asked for 6k as it went. Maybe not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DE. said:

It's clear from his quotes about being frustrated about the summer budget when he left that he was expecting more assurances than he ended up getting. I think he outright said that, and it seemed tied into selling Rhodes as that was done with great urgency in January when previous managers had failed to do so. As with everything Venky's related it's all smoke-and-mirrors and it'll probably be years before we know the real truth behind the Bowyer sacking, Lambert appointment/resignation, Coyle arrival era of 2015-2016. Some strange stuff going on there regardless. 

I can't recall PL specifically saying he was disappointed with the summer budget but if you can find a link to the contrary fair enough. In fact I've got it in the back of my head that PL said somewhere that when he met with Pasha they never even got as far as discussing budgets etc.

Edit: Also it appears PL was no fan of Rhodes at all and the money was made available for Coyle to make Graham permanent so there's nothing there to suggest he should walk out on our account.

Edited by RevidgeBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CP Company Lad said:

We asked for 6k as it went. Maybe not a good idea.

Well that certainly clears that up. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CP Company Lad said:

Occasionally. 

At Ewood.

 

 

I’m sure you’ll be glad to know I just soiled my pants.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I hate to speak like Rafa Benitez but I am dealing with facts here.

Hurst got sacked after 9 points from 15 points, an embarrassingly low number of points, and was deservedly sacked.

Lambert has since taken the same squad that Hurst had, presumably expecting at least some sort of improvement on Hursts sorry points total. He has since gone on and accumulated 9 points from 16 games. Why does he deserve any longer in the job?

On top of the squad that Hurst had, which he has got even less from than Hurst got, he has been able to bring in 7 players (two thirds of a team essentially) on short term deals. Losses in their last 4 games suggests that his work in the transfer market has not improved them at all.

Further to this, the work he is doing is very short term. Judge seemed a good signing before he stuck him out wide every week. Will Keane is dog shit, Callum Elder is dog shit, Dawkins is dog shit, and any minutes they play are done neither to the benefit of the short term or the long term, which they wont be around for, Neither will Collins, Quaner or Bree next season.

I have no care for Ipswich fans opinions, their opinions have proved to be meaningless with how they see McCarthy. I only care about results. Lambert might talk a good game, he did here, banging on about what hes learnt in Germany etc, slagging off the job that previous managers or owners have done to curry favour, paying for coach travel as a gimmick to take the spotlight slightly away from the fact that his team is losing every week by showing what a lovely man he is.

I am giving you why I think Paul Lambert is very lucky to still be in a job, in cold, hard, black and white facts. Talking to biased supporters would not make a difference to my opinion. My opinion is solely based on point accumulation, and it is pretty water tight based on what I have said above.

The fact of the matter is, you are refusing to acknowledge that Lamberts record with the same players Hurst add with some of his own players on top is even worse than his predecessor. For me, if Hursts record warranted dismissal, and it did, so equally does Lamberts. End of.

Ipswich squad isn't good enough and that started poor summer recruitment and Hurst wasted 5 millions on league 1/2 players. 

He can only sign players he can due to budget and players wanting to come. Maybe they could have got better players but overpaid wages and transfer fees wise but I guess they didn't want to.

You don't care for Ipswich fans opinions because you cant stand them cos they back Lambert. 

Move on from the Mick McCarthy love in. you are obsess with him. 

Lambert needs to build his own squad and you will see next season. I think Ipswich going down might be a good thing and they can clear the deadwood and start again with a new improving younger team. similar to us. 

Hurst's dismissal was down to more than results. But things going on at training ground, behind the scenes. @DE. has posted these at the time. 

14 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Hes obviously not inherited good situations in particular in his last 2 jobs, my point is based around how he has not caused even a minor improvement at either club, in fact he has overseen a very slight reduction in points per game.

Last season at Stoke, Mark Hughes was understandably sacked after a shocking run of 20 points from 22 games, 0.91 points per game. With such a low benchmark, even with not the best squad in the world, you'd expect a new manager to oversee even a slight improvement, fresh ideas, new manager bounce etc. Following a game with Lambert in the stands and a caretaker on the touchline, Lambert oversaw 13 points from 15 games (3 of which came in a dead rubber on the last day) accumulating 0.87 points per game.

Same at Ipswich. Hurst undoubtedly did a woeful job, picking up 9 points from 15 games, 0.6 points per game. Lambert has picked up the same squad, added to it, and picked up 9 points from 16 games, 0.56 points per game. Piss poor.

No-one has improved Stoke and now onto their 3rd manager in 12 months since sacking Hughes and gone. Yes they 3rd manager. Stoke players weren't good enough and still aren't. 

He had the same point per game over the same games period. But their squad isn't good enough and this started in the summer under Hurst. 

Just now, DE. said:

No argument from me. My main concern as an Ipswich fan right now would be the new signings, which seem absolutely pointless. Their squad when Lambert arrived was nowhere near the required standard, and multiple signings later it's still nowhere near. If you're going to buy Alan Judge at least play him in his correct position, otherwise why not buy a wide midfielder or a winger? Some strange decisions going on there. Will Keane is like a shit version of Andy Carroll, ponytail and all. 

Lambert changed formation on Sunday and played Judge in the 10 role. 

I guess Lambert was restricted by the signings he could make in January due to league position

33 minutes ago, DE. said:

 

If he quits Ipswich then yes, I'd think he's done for a while at any decent level. He has improved their general play (they actually played quite well against Norwich in spells) but he hasn't been able to cut out their defensive mistakes and his short term signings all look well short of the standard needed to get Ipswich the points they need, which begs the question of why they were signed in the first place. Judge is decent but being played on the wing. Quaner and Keane no better than what Ipswich already had. Same for the likes of Bree. Just desperation signings with no real purpose. At least we got a couple of decent players in Graham and Bennett. Ipswich might as well have signed nobody at all. 

Their general play is better than before, but defensive mistakes keep happening even from their most experience players. 

Judge played the 10 role on Sunday. I would say that Jackson and Harrison aren't Championship standard and I don't see Lambert wanting to keep them next season. Quaner is a target man and Lambert like to play with that type of player. 

Ipswich don't appear to have a natural right back at the club so I can understand the Bree signing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people want to re-write history with Lambert or pin all the blame for what happened on his shoulders rather than the owners. The very same owners who responded to his departure by bringing in Coyle. If ever you needed evidence that the people running this club weren't fit for purpose that was it.

Let's blame it all on Lambert. Nothing at all to do with the owners who sold all our decent players and put us into the 3rd division through a lack of investment, neglect and appalling decisions. 

Quite clear he was brought in on the basis of doing a certain job and at some stage or other the goalposts moved. Is Lambert a saint? No, he's an odd bloke whose career is in danger of falling by the wayside after taking poor jobs and not sticking around, but Venkys take the blame in my book. They appointed him, God knows what they promised him, or what they expected of him, but quite clear that the budget wasn't and still isn't good enough to demand promotion and yet they appear to still seek it or claim to do. Lambert didn't spend anything on players and only brought in frees and loans.

We are back at square one though - supposedly the owners are ambitious and want promotion, supposedly they have made a good budget available for players to achieve that, yet lo and behold money doesn't actually get spent. Where have we heard that one before?

Edited by JHRover
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Ipswich squad isn't good enough and that started poor summer recruitment and Hurst wasted 5 millions on league 1/2 players. 

He can only sign players he can due to budget and players wanting to come. Maybe they could have got better players but overpaid wages and transfer fees wise but I guess they didn't want to.

You don't care for Ipswich fans opinions because you cant stand them cos they back Lambert. 

Move on from the Mick McCarthy love in. you are obsess with him. 

Lambert needs to build his own squad and you will see next season. I think Ipswich going down might be a good thing and they can clear the deadwood and start again with a new improving younger team. similar to us. 

Hurst's dismissal was down to more than results. But things going on at training ground, behind the scenes. @DE. has posted these at the time. 

No-one has improved Stoke and now onto their 3rd manager in 12 months since sacking Hughes and gone. Yes they 3rd manager. Stoke players weren't good enough and still aren't. 

He had the same point per game over the same games period. But their squad isn't good enough and this started in the summer under Hurst. 

Lambert changed formation on Sunday and played Judge in the 10 role. 

I guess Lambert was restricted by the signings he could make in January due to league position

Their general play is better than before, but defensive mistakes keep happening even from their most experience players. 

Judge played the 10 role on Sunday. I would say that Jackson and Harrison aren't Championship standard and I don't see Lambert wanting to keep them next season. Quaner is a target man and Lambert like to play with that type of player. 

Ipswich don't appear to have a natural right back at the club so I can understand the Bree signing

I dont know if you are being purposely obtuse or just ignorant. I know Ipswichs squad isnt very good, but Lambert has done even worse than Hurst with it, just as he did worse thn Hughes at Stoke. The "general play" is objectively not better because its churning out slightly worse results. The fact that rumours of squad morale issues and player-manager fall outs or whatever under Hurst only add additional context to how bad Lambert is doing, you would think a fresh face with no bad blood with his players would lead to better results, not worse!

If Ipswich fans are happy with him, fooled by his gimmicks, his interviews, his personality or whatever, then good for them, but im just glad that he is not our manager anymore because he isnt a very good one. 

The difference is, my argument is based on results and facts, yours is based on personal bias, supporter opinion, baseless predictions, and a total ignorance of results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I think some people want to re-write history with Lambert or pin all the blame for what happened on his shoulders rather than the owners. The very same owners who responded to his departure by bringing in Coyle. If ever you needed evidence that the people running this club weren't fit for purpose that was it.

Let's blame it all on Lambert. Nothing at all to do with the owners who sold all our decent players and put us into the 3rd division through a lack of investment, neglect and appalling decisions. 

Quite clear he was brought in on the basis of doing a certain job and at some stage or other the goalposts moved. Is Lambert a saint? No, he's an odd bloke whose career is in danger of falling by the wayside after taking poor jobs and not sticking around, but Venkys take the blame in my book. They appointed him, God knows what they promised him, or what they expected of him, but quite clear that the budget wasn't and still isn't good enough to demand promotion and yet they appear to still seek it or claim to do. Lambert didn't spend anything on players and only brought in frees and loans.

We are back at square one though - supposedly the owners are ambitious and want promotion, supposedly they have made a good budget available for players to achieve that, yet lo and behold money doesn't actually get spent. Where have we heard that one before?

Ive not seen one person suggest that Venkys were anything other than villains.

Lambert may have been promised finances the owners didnt keep, thats one thing we will never know. His actual spell here was the definition of underwhelming, bringing in plenty of loans, the football was pretty dull, and his results were average, which is admittedly far better than horrendous which his record has been in his last 2 jobs.

His cleverest move was his timing of departure and the way he went about it; Venkys were undoubtedly the primary villains and activating a very curiously placed release clause in his contract when the club was lingering in the bottom half and perhaps justifiably criticising the owners in the media was a PR masterstroke, with fans chanting his name not because he was Paul Lambert, or a competent manager, but because he went publically against the villains of the piece, Venkys.

The way he left aside, his brief spell here was neither successful or a failure, it was instantly forgettable. 

The job he has done in his last 2 roles is subject to most debate. To be unable to coax any improvement at all from managers who had either started to go stale and stagnate (Hughes at Stoke) or managers who were out of their depth from the start and rumoured to have fallen out with key players already (Hurst at Ipswich) is really poor. Look at Mowbray, he took over a limited squad running at a rate of less than a point per game following a woeful manager. With the same squad he caused a considerable improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I think some people want to re-write history with Lambert or pin all the blame for what happened on his shoulders rather than the owners. The very same owners who responded to his departure by bringing in Coyle. If ever you needed evidence that the people running this club weren't fit for purpose that was it.

Let's blame it all on Lambert. Nothing at all to do with the owners who sold all our decent players and put us into the 3rd division through a lack of investment, neglect and appalling decisions. 

Quite clear he was brought in on the basis of doing a certain job and at some stage or other the goalposts moved. Is Lambert a saint? No, he's an odd bloke whose career is in danger of falling by the wayside after taking poor jobs and not sticking around, but Venkys take the blame in my book. They appointed him, God knows what they promised him, or what they expected of him, but quite clear that the budget wasn't and still isn't good enough to demand promotion and yet they appear to still seek it or claim to do. Lambert didn't spend anything on players and only brought in frees and loans.

We are back at square one though - supposedly the owners are ambitious and want promotion, supposedly they have made a good budget available for players to achieve that, yet lo and behold money doesn't actually get spent. Where have we heard that one before?

How did we exploit him? We rescued him off the managerial scrapheap, got him back on the managerial merry go round, and allowed him (extremely unusually) to insert a get out clause in his contract which he exercised.

He didn't pull up any trees while he was here, didn't sort out the contracts of anyone who needed sorting out, signed a lot of rubbish on loan, and sold our most valuable player on the last day of the transfer window before walking out leaving us at the end of the season without a single senior striker on the books.

You could possibly say he'd been unlucky and blame it on our owners if he'd been a raging success everywhere else he'd been since  but if anything it's been more of the same or even worse.

Edited by RevidgeBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

How did we exploit him? We rescued him off the managerial scrapheap, got him back on the managerial merry go round, and allowed him (extremely unusually) to insert a get out clause in his contract which he exercised.

He didn't pull up any trees while he was here, didn't sort out the contracts of anyone who needed sorting out, signed a lot of rubbish on loan, and sold our most valuable player on the last day of the transfer window before walking out leaving us at the end of the season without a single senior striker on the books.

You could possibly say he'd been unlucky and blame it on our owners if he'd been a raging success everywhere else he'd been since  but if anything it's been more of the same or even worse.

Again I think it depends on which way you look at it. How much ability did Lambert have issue new contracts? How much freedom did he have in January to sign new players and not loans? Did he get rid of Rhodes because he really wanted to or because he was led to believe by someone that if he did he would get the cash to reinvest? As far as I can recall the only contract issue around that time was Ben Marshall, and he still had 12 months to go after Lambert departed so plenty of time to get that sorted. His departure was followed by those of Duffy and Hanley to rivals - that suggests to me one of two things - either those players wanted out after Lambert's departure and the path the club was taking became clear or alternatively the plan from above had been to sell them and that was why Lambert packed his bags.

I think his record with signings with no money was better than Mowbray's has been. He only had a January window yet delivered us Graham, Bennett with a 10 million profit. The rest were mainly loans that left the following summer. Meanwhile Mowbray tells us it isn't possible to strengthen the squad in January as it is too expensive despite the owners making money available.

Didn't pull up any trees but realistically what position would have been? Promotion or play offs? Never going to happen with that squad given our start to the season. His record was better than Jokanovic at Fulham who took over at a similar time yet with backing and a proper structure did ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lambert is a piss poor manager whose made his career off the back of a purple patch at Norwich where he got promoted twice. He's done nothing anywhere else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tom Stinny said:

Lambert is a piss poor manager whose made his career off the back of a purple patch at Norwich where he got promoted twice. He's done nothing anywhere else.

Perfectly summarised Tom Stinny. Clear, concise and correct. Just what we like around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was pretty good at Wycombe tbf, and imo at least did a solid job at Villa. His career hasn't gone anywhere since then though. A short stint here which basically just got him back into the spotlight, an average tenure at Wolves followed by really poor spells at Stoke and Ipswich. He now has little choice but to stay at Ipswich (who seem happy to keep him for the foreseeable future) and try to get them promoted from League 1. It won't be as easy as it was for Mowbray though, as Ipswich don't have a Danny Graham, an Elliott Bennett, a Charlie Mulgrew, a Darragh Lenihan or a Corry Evans to hold on to. They have a much worse playing squad than we had when we went down, and Marcus Evans hasn't invested in a long time, so it could be a tough slog for Ipswich next season. I can see them being similar to Rotherham and ending up in the playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DE. said:

He was pretty good at Wycombe tbf, and imo at least did a solid job at Villa. His career hasn't gone anywhere since then though. A short stint here which basically just got him back into the spotlight, an average tenure at Wolves followed by really poor spells at Stoke and Ipswich. He now has little choice but to stay at Ipswich (who seem happy to keep him for the foreseeable future) and try to get them promoted from League 1. It won't be as easy as it was for Mowbray though, as Ipswich don't have a Danny Graham, an Elliott Bennett, a Charlie Mulgrew, a Darragh Lenihan or a Corry Evans to hold on to. They have a much worse playing squad than we had when we went down, and Marcus Evans hasn't invested in a long time, so it could be a tough slog for Ipswich next season. I can see them being similar to Rotherham and ending up in the playoffs. 

Much more accurately summed up.

Also, Ipswich really are bad and won't find it easy next season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I dont know if you are being purposely obtuse or just ignorant. I know Ipswichs squad isnt very good, but Lambert has done even worse than Hurst with it, just as he did worse thn Hughes at Stoke. The "general play" is objectively not better because its churning out slightly worse results. The fact that rumours of squad morale issues and player-manager fall outs or whatever under Hurst only add additional context to how bad Lambert is doing, you would think a fresh face with no bad blood with his players would lead to better results, not worse!

If Ipswich fans are happy with him, fooled by his gimmicks, his interviews, his personality or whatever, then good for them, but im just glad that he is not our manager anymore because he isnt a very good one. 

The difference is, my argument is based on results and facts, yours is based on personal bias, supporter opinion, baseless predictions, and a total ignorance of results.

It turns out the same over the same game period. 

You cant just keep changing managers every 6 months. Look at Stoke as example of going nowhere of note despite spending over 50 millions pounds on new players. Or you appoint someone who you trust and believe him and allow that to make the changes needed in short, medium and long term to the club. Similar to what Norwich did with Farke. 

But you have always answered your point earlier in your post. The squad isn't good and that will only improve in the summer. Hurst spent the money in the summer on poor quality and signed to many lower league players. 

Ipswich fans are happy with him for various reasons but you haven't even look in to. why? cos you aren't interested in fans views of their own fans. You are only interested in fans views when they were unhappy with McCarthy. very much double standards. 

Like I have said I think going down might help Ipswich as they can clear of deadwood out then rebuild a new squad. Like we did 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Ive not seen one person suggest that Venkys were anything other than villains.

Lambert may have been promised finances the owners didnt keep, thats one thing we will never know. His actual spell here was the definition of underwhelming, bringing in plenty of loans, the football was pretty dull, and his results were average, which is admittedly far better than horrendous which his record has been in his last 2 jobs.

His cleverest move was his timing of departure and the way he went about it; Venkys were undoubtedly the primary villains and activating a very curiously placed release clause in his contract when the club was lingering in the bottom half and perhaps justifiably criticising the owners in the media was a PR masterstroke, with fans chanting his name not because he was Paul Lambert, or a competent manager, but because he went publically against the villains of the piece, Venkys.

The way he left aside, his brief spell here was neither successful or a failure, it was instantly forgettable. 

The job he has done in his last 2 roles is subject to most debate. To be unable to coax any improvement at all from managers who had either started to go stale and stagnate (Hughes at Stoke) or managers who were out of their depth from the start and rumoured to have fallen out with key players already (Hurst at Ipswich) is really poor. Look at Mowbray, he took over a limited squad running at a rate of less than a point per game following a woeful manager. With the same squad he caused a considerable improvement.

plenty of loans? he bought in 4 loans. Graham who signed permanently in the summer, Gomez who did very well, Grimes who was poor and Tony Watt who was signed a loan with a view to permanent deal in that summer. Plus we signed  3 permanent signings in Bennett, Ward and Jackson. 

Hardly plenty of loan is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

It turns out the same over the same game period. 

You cant just keep changing managers every 6 months. Look at Stoke as example of going nowhere of note despite spending over 50 millions pounds on new players. Or you appoint someone who you trust and believe him and allow that to make the changes needed in short, medium and long term to the club. Similar to what Norwich did with Farke. 

But you have always answered your point earlier in your post. The squad isn't good and that will only improve in the summer. Hurst spent the money in the summer on poor quality and signed to many lower league players. 

Ipswich fans are happy with him for various reasons but you haven't even look in to. why? cos you aren't interested in fans views of their own fans. You are only interested in fans views when they were unhappy with McCarthy. very much double standards. 

Like I have said I think going down might help Ipswich as they can clear of deadwood out then rebuild a new squad. Like we did 

They do need a clearout and a rebuild but they need a competent man to do it. I am judging a manager on results, I know the squad is poor but there was no point changing from Hurst to Lambert as his results with the same set of players (plus hes been able to add 7 more) has been no better. (in fact moderately worse) Lambert has done nothing to earn that trust.

The best example is when we had Coyle, surely by your above logic we should have stayed patient and kept with Coyle rather than appoint Mowbray.  No, because Coyle hadnt earnt any trust. Mowbray then managed to get a significant IMPROVEMENT IN RESULTS WITH THE SAME PLAYERS even though the squad was crap because he is a better manager than Coyle. As a direct comparison. Lambert has not got any improvement in results with the same players. Simple as that. What the fans think, what sort of bloke he is, its irrelevant, judge a manager on results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problems with Hurst went beyond just results on the pitch - I think if it was just results they may have stuck with him longer. Unfortunately for him he managed to alienate a lot of players and backroom staff as well, and that added pressure to an already delicate situation. Lambert hasn't improved Ipswich's results but he's a good politician which gets him a lot more leeway from the supporters and usually the owners as well. Hurst was very naive in that respect. 

As if things aren't bad enough for Ipswich, now Freddie Sears, their top scorer, is out for 12 months with a knee injury. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DE. said:

The problems with Hurst went beyond just results on the pitch - I think if it was just results they may have stuck with him longer. Unfortunately for him he managed to alienate a lot of players and backroom staff as well, and that added pressure to an already delicate situation. Lambert hasn't improved Ipswich's results but he's a good politician which gets him a lot more leeway from the supporters and usually the owners as well. Hurst was very naive in that respect. 

As if things aren't bad enough for Ipswich, now Freddie Sears, their top scorer, is out for 12 months with a knee injury. 

 

Ouch. He tore League 1 up last time he was in it too. Would have been a saving grace for Ipswich in their season down there.

To be truthful though I saw Paul Lambert's Villa week in week out when I was in the Midlands and they were tragic. An extremely poor side that played some mind numbing football. It's a fine line between whether he did a good job or whether he put them in that position. There is only so long you can blame owners for your poor performance as manager. He has brought players in everywhere he went, whether they cost or not is irrelevant, and most of the time they have been poor(er) players. As a rounding up excercise I guarantee you that Paul Lambert has left more clubs in a worse state than when he took over than he has improved them. To me that is the sign of a poor manager.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Ouch. He tore League 1 up last time he was in it too. Would have been a saving grace for Ipswich in their season down there.

To be truthful though I saw Paul Lambert's Villa week in week out when I was in the Midlands and they were tragic. An extremely poor side that played some mind numbing football. It's a fine line between whether he did a good job or whether he put them in that position. There is only so long you can blame owners for your poor performance as manager. He has brought players in everywhere he went, whether they cost or not is irrelevant, and most of the time they have been poor(er) players. As a rounding up excercise I guarantee you that Paul Lambert has left more clubs in a worse state than when he took over than he has improved them. To me that is the sign of a poor manager.

The Villa/Lambert debate reminds me a bit of the Ipswich/McCarthy debate - was the shit football down to the manager's preference or a neccessity in order to get the best out of very limited players with hardly any resource to strengthen? As far as Ipswich and McCarthy were concerned I'd say the latter, I can't say I saw enough of Villa under Lambert to make a solid judgement - but they've been going downhill since he left which suggests a structural problem rather than it being purely down to the manager. 

I think your conclusion is harsh to be honest but I'm not interested enough in Lambert's career to start researching in depth! I think he was a good manager in his younger days, the Villa job ground him down and now he's an average manager at best. Put him in a mid-table team and he'll basically keep them mid-table. Put him in a relegation-threatened team and they'll more or less stay in the same position. I don't think he's a bad manager but I don't think he's a good one at the moment either. Just somewhere in between. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.