Bridcutt would just be an inferior version of Smallwood on higher wages whose struggled at Championship level for a bit now.

Good point. Id still prefer them to have just left the Darwen End open to be honest, but your alternative shows some proactivity the club seemingly lacks.

That bottom suggestion is good in that it does allow more away fans or whatever they want to suggest closing the Darwen End does, whilst allowing that unreserved seating that appeals to many and also leaves more fans in the one stand. Then again, it is again moving even more fans against their will.

I find the Holloway/QPR thing strange, dont rate him at all as a manager but from the outside hes done a decent job with no money and a poor squad. If they get McLaren or similar recycled rubbish then its an odd move. Both the Ipswich and QPR jobs are not attractive ones, would be surprised if they upgraded.

Aye, may aswell sign square pegs to play in the square holes that hopefully make up a 4-2-3-1 formation judging by its success this year.

Too late to be telling fans after the event and the resulting backlash. As many have pointed out, most of the teams mentioned wont need a full stand so the rationale is nonsensical.

Maddison can also play wide just as easily so would be a great signing but probably too expensive. Oztumer seems to be only able to play as a 10, so would be back up and lack the flexibility of a Maddison, his numbers are good and he is free so plenty of plusses but im not even sure if hes guaranteed a game at Walsall.

Whilst that is true, a large enough proportion of football supporters, especially away fans, would prefer to stand at football matches, that is clear. A bit of common sense needs to prevail at times, im all for promoting safe standing wherever possible too, hats off to Shrewsbury there. One of the plus points of the Darwen End was being able to go to the back, unreserved, and stand up. Affecting no one else at all. Everyone sat down usually puts a dampner on the atmosphere, therefore if you can seperate those who want to stand and those who want to sit, I dont see why its an issue.

Exactly. Lets not pretend that he had nothing to play with either, he had half a season, including over 10m i think spent in January, hes got Butland, Zouma, Shawcross, Martins Indi, Peiters, Shaqiri, Sobhi, Allen, Crouch, enough to at least win 2 or 3 games. Surely if Hughes wasnt doing enough to stay, Lambert with a worse record has even less of a right to stay. All of these disciplinary issues seem to have got worse under him too. Lambert has hid behind a few excuses at a few clubs in a row now, Villa, Rovers, Wolves and now Stoke, different excuses, same manager.

I've found that when weve gone to a 3, Williams left, Lenihan right, that has left Mulgrew in the middle unable to bring the ball out anyway, such is his position. It looked better when we improved towards the end of the last Championship campaign but Mulgrew was on the left, however Williams and Nyambe at the time were at wing back and not fit for purpose there due to their defensive tendencies.

Whilst you may have a point in terms of needing a missing piece in the jigsaw, surely you could then argue that the same player added to what is already a proven successful structure and tactic with the rest of our players, the 4-2-3-1, would become even more efficient.

Get rid of him because his legs have gone, hes continuously injured, hes not assisted a goal all season and hes struggled even in League 1 sadly. If he gets released, youll be insistent that it was the right thing to do anyway. It suits some but not all. Went back to 4-2-3-1 v Oxford and looked far better as a result. It suits our best players. Mulgrew plays centrally in the 3 to fit Williams in, meaning that he cannot bring the ball out, whereas Williams and Lenihan are not good enough on the ball to play out from the back. Nyambe and Williams are quite defensive full backs, therefore they are made redundant by the formation. The focus on keeping the ball means that we play a lot slower and struggle to create chances. Dack can become sidelined and it can affect his link up with Graham when hes having to move wide to find any space in the formation. Stick to whats got us here in my opinion, 4-2-3-1 suits our spine down the ground. As you touch on itll only get harder to implement, maybe a formation that plays better on paper for our squad, and is best staying on paper.

So you are saying that his tactics have impressed you, yet you would play a totally different formation? Im not saying the recruitment has been good, but that then brings you back to another point weve previously discussed, that Hughes did a poor job towards the end at Stoke and thus was very lucky to instantly stumble into another Premier League job! That said, id rather have Hughes over Lambert any day. I also think that Lambert got his priorities all wrong in January, signing a left back and a holding midfielder, as touched on in a different thread, we can all say "the players werent available," as we all know Lambert isnt hard pushed to hide behind excuses, his CV is littered with him shirking responsibility. You're straying away from the main lack of accountability that you are putting on Lambert for what is a horrendous run of results under his watch, dress it up how you want, give me all the reasons you want, all the excuses, but hes been lucky to get the job, as @FGS5635 mentions hes been living off one good job for far too long, and his record since is, no matter how you dress it up, terrible.

I think, and Saturday was a good example, that Nyambe offers nothing going forward. That said, hes come on leaps and bounds as a defensive full back. As much as like any team we have a few star players, to imply that it was anything but a team effort to get such a high points total is naive in the extreme.

Wouldnt be surprised to see Bennett back wide next year. If he does, he needs to contribute more goals as he is capable of doing. His work rate and pressing do give us something a bit different, and using him there renders Conway even more meaningless now his legs are gone.

Tactics? https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/stoke-city-relegation-paul-lambert-1539336 Some perceive 4-4-2 as an attacking formation simply by dint of having an extra striker on the pitch, but that means little if you remove a creative player to make way for them, which is what Paul Lambert did. Stoke started the game with purpose and at a high tempo, but were hamstrung by a system that rendered them utterly predictable. With a right back again on the left wing, robbing the side of balance and width, Palace quickly sussed out that Stoke’s only options were the overburdened Xherdan Shaqiri on the right or the head of Peter Crouch, and Roy Hodgson moved to choke off both options. There were alternatives open to Lambert. He could’ve played 4-2-3-1 and moved Shaqiri back into the number 10 role where he has more freedom. He could also have found room for Stephen Ireland, a rare creator, who once again didn’t so much as leave the bench with the team desperate for a goal. Instead, Lambert embraced the old definition of insanity, doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. His negative approach to winnable games is not the only factor in Stoke’s demise, but it is a factor nonetheless. He is not the man to lead this team in the Championship. He has to go. Im quite amazed that you are promoting alternatives to Moore getting the job on the back of 3 wins and 2 draws in 5 games, showing an instant impact after inheriting a far more sorry state, whereas Lambert unequivocally deserves to stay on the back of 1 win in 14.

Just as a barometer, we can all agree that Pardew needed to go. Pardew had 3 wins from 21, Lambert 1 from 14. Pardew got 14 points from 21, Lambert has 10 from 14.

Just on the sole argument that Lambert hasnt had enough time, you are insistent on that, very defiant, Morais has had 1 more game than him (and 2 more wins) yet you arent saying the same line, whys he not getting more time. Not difficult to understand my point. Performances, interviews, being appointed in the first place, nothing to do with it, the point is solely on time in the job, and the argument "Lambert hasnt had enough time" not being applicable in an almost identical situation with Morais. Not difficult to understand.

Id imagine Nyambe will start as right back and Bennett down a wing. I just hope we dont try and use Nyambe (or anyone) as a wing back, hes too defensive to play that role, hes fine at right back. Back to 4-2-3-1 yesterday and back to looking good.

For me, clauses like that are always a big red flag, if a club isnt sure of a manager to begin with then quite simply they shouldnt appoint them, do you agree? I understand the whole point about that being such a short period of time, but sometimes as hard as it is morally, you can tell when a manager is not showing that he is capable of getting wins at his football club, and Lambert has failed, even if the sample size is smaller than wed like to judge. I feel that its hypocritical though that you seem flippant and understanding that Morais can go, clause or no clause, after one 1 more game (and 2 more wins!) in comparison to Lambert who you are so defensive of.

Footballs a results game. But your main argument for Lambert is that hes had no time. Neither has Morais by that argument then, surely?

Footballs a results game. Incredibly hypocritical to say Lambert deserves time but not leap to the defence of Morais in the same way.

What do you make of this chaddy? Lambert, 1 win in 14, relegated, deserves to stay, lack of time. Morais, 3 wins in 15, relegated, ...?

Thats the point. You are saying you would give up your job etc, but you know you wouldnt have to, otherwise you wouldnt say it. You are able to afford it, and you are able to stay where you are currently sat, therefore in your mind, there are no problems, anyone saying otherwise is just moaning for no reason, and you cant understand how others feel. Price wise, I still think its pretty reasonable albeit its not ridiculously low like it used to be, but got no qualms over price, its the Darwen End issue for me thats annoyed me. But I understand others and their issues regarding prices. You seemingly dont. Frustrating lack of empathy makes discussion with you more difficult than most. Exaggerating the numbers to make it seem like theres less in there, but how would you like to be moved? Whys it pointless having it open if Rovers fans are happy where they are, and it offers fans there benefits such as unreserved seating unavailable elsewhere in the ground? They will mainly move to the Jack Walker, seen discussion about it already to be near the away fans, I think il end up in the Blackburn End but regardless, the seamless move into everyone being together and a better atmosphere cannot be done as easily as the club seem to think.

If you did then you are being ignorant. Case in point. @Tom mentioned that he was affected in a similar move in regards to the family stand last season. Was I that concerned? No. But I certainly empathised with him because again, he was happy where he was, where he was had certain aspects that made sitting there ideal, and that choice was taken away. Its a total lack of empathy you are showing. An attitude of im not affected so people complaining cant have a valid point as im personally unaffected.