| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? 09:31 - Dec 2 with 3822 views | unstableblue |
Large number of posters stating he’s not good enough, never thought he was good enough, bringing out factors such as his inability to keep us up last season, or make a better fight of survival.
Is this a bit harsh? Is it people’s pre-judgement of Lambert coming to the fore and a desire to be proven right?
So many other negative factors referenced - squad rotation; lack of clear system/formation; ‘tippy tappy in midfield but not enough forward momentum; one lone striker unnecessary at this level.
Even recent performances used as a stick to beat him?! And questions of who we would replace him with?!
Personally I think there needs to be some perspective! Whilst I agree we haven’t torn a team apart in a 80mins ruthless display, and I’m still fuming with the lack lustre Rotherham display, we are Second in the League with two games in hand that would take us top!!!!!!
Some other positive factors:
- as a club we had forgotten how to pass and move effectively - in the 1-1 runs last season and continuing into this we simply pass better, and are getting 60% possessions stats. We had seasons of having lowere possession and at home
- the rotation has allowed us to rehab Dozzell, Huws, Keane and other players very effectively. And have a fit and sharp Donacien to fill an injury gap
- we have managed to nurse Norwood through injury and remain second, a player who should be fresh for an extended run over Christmas
- we now have real options and competition - with Judge, Keane, Huws and Dozzel being real option rather than out of form unfit players
- when we have clicked our forward play has been excellent this season, with some great flowing moves
- there have been a number of ‘halves’ where Town have turned in great displays
- the Wolf and Downes have massively progressed under Lambert, and fringe youth such as Dobra and El Mizouni are being given game time
- this league is hard, not as low quality as many lazily protest, and we are second
- Garbutt, Holy, Wilson Norwood are good signings
- the PR element of Paul, who many deride, has the best atmosphere I can remember for a decade and a 19.5k average. And average that suggests not everyone agrees with the dissenters
So is it all really that bad? Is Lambert hopeless as some suggest?
Agree that ‘the performance’ has yet to materialise and don’t think his sub choices are always optimum, but perhaps you have to have faith in Lamberts and his team... it’s a marathon and it’s league position that counts, and where we end up come May. And a bit more credit for turning around a fan base and support that was broken.
Come on chaps - back the guy and the project for now - and hopefully the December games will win over some dissenters.
COYFB [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 9:32]
|  |
| |  |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 09:41 - Dec 2 with 2311 views | Steve_M |
It's over the top but this is the internet age and fans looking for minor angle to attack a manager doing an ok job is standard.
It would have been possible for Lambert to keep us up but difficult with a squad lacking quality and experience in key areas. Mick managed it but that was an exceptional achievement however some people may have chose to spin it afterwards.
This season there are valid questions to ask, particularly about home form and how we are setting out to play at Portman Road, but the idea that Lambert is failing is ludicrous. As good as the squad is for this division, it's still unbalanced with too many players not properly fit or in form. Some of that may be down to Lambert but not all.
It takes time to turn a team round after relegation. 1995-96 had some awful matches in, losing 5-1 at home to Charlton and watching Barnsley pass round us for fun on a cold December Friday stand out. And are erratic form in the early part of 2003-04 not only saw Burley sacked but enough points dropped under Royle to cost us a play-off place and an immediate return.
Constructive, nuanced criticism is fine, indeed necessary. That's not what a few of the posts yesterday were. |  |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 09:43 - Dec 2 with 2294 views | ITFC_Forever |
Too much of an element of the Emporer's New Clothes for me.
And although the PR Paul nickname has become a cliche, there are elements of it that are true.
Nowhere near enough goal threat when we go forward, especially if Norwood isn't available and there's no settled formation / line-up - PL almost seems to be in Hurst territory in that he doesn't know his best line-up and formation and is blathering around changing it every week to see if something clicks.
The one thing that it saving us and has got us in to the top two is the fact we simply have better players in a poor division - not any kind of tactical acumen.
We all hope we will get out of this division, but when we do, we will come straight back down - last season showed we aren't good enough for the Champ, and we all know ME won't invest sufficiently to allow us to compete in the Champ. Being a top-end L1 club suits ME down to the ground. |  |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 09:49 - Dec 2 with 2262 views | SaleAway |
I think its a response to a relative dip in form since the start of the season.
Since we beat Gillingham at the beginning of October, we're W3 D4 L3
Coming from our undefeated start, its not great. But time will tell - if we kick on in the 2nd half of the season, then this will fade away - the squad rotation makes sense given the injury rehab needed, and the number of games we're going to have to play.
But you're right - its not all bad by any means. I think people just want to see more of a developed style. We're keeping the ball better, but as Arsenal fans will tell you - toothless possession is a tad pointless... we still see the same problems we've seen for years... lack of forward thinking central midfield play - meaning the strikers get isolated from the rest. Its been the same for so long - and as fans, we'd like to see an attempt to address it. |  |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 09:51 - Dec 2 with 2244 views | unstableblue |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 09:41 - Dec 2 by Steve_M |
It's over the top but this is the internet age and fans looking for minor angle to attack a manager doing an ok job is standard.
It would have been possible for Lambert to keep us up but difficult with a squad lacking quality and experience in key areas. Mick managed it but that was an exceptional achievement however some people may have chose to spin it afterwards.
This season there are valid questions to ask, particularly about home form and how we are setting out to play at Portman Road, but the idea that Lambert is failing is ludicrous. As good as the squad is for this division, it's still unbalanced with too many players not properly fit or in form. Some of that may be down to Lambert but not all.
It takes time to turn a team round after relegation. 1995-96 had some awful matches in, losing 5-1 at home to Charlton and watching Barnsley pass round us for fun on a cold December Friday stand out. And are erratic form in the early part of 2003-04 not only saw Burley sacked but enough points dropped under Royle to cost us a play-off place and an immediate return.
Constructive, nuanced criticism is fine, indeed necessary. That's not what a few of the posts yesterday were. |
I think you make a key point in that it can take a long long time to turn around a failing team, to change attitudes and playing systems. Easy to jettison a manager or for fans to become negative before that takes place. So easy to become impatient.
I’ve see JUST enough from Lambert’s teams/systems this season to suggest some progress is being made, I though elements of the Blackpool game - against a well drilled, physical, defensive, form side - had real merit. And so lazy to suggest otherwise.
Also people are underestimating just how muxh opposition are upping their game against us this season.
One other point - I definitely think Mick worked miracles on the budget to keep us mid table; but in some ways the restrictive footballing practices he embedded to grind out those results is one of the challenges Lambert has inherited. We were outplayed and our possession statted regularly in Micks last two seasons. Some posters were reminiscent of those times ahead of these... which is a bit silly, albeit we are in League One!!! | |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:06 - Dec 2 with 2204 views | wkj |
People are starting to cling on to that Shots on Target statistic, in some cases more so than goals scored. |  |
| |
| Unfortunately the stats for..... on 10:08 - Dec 2 with 2192 views | Bloots |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:06 - Dec 2 by wkj |
People are starting to cling on to that Shots on Target statistic, in some cases more so than goals scored. |
....both of those are often the same.
That's the issue. |  |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:12 - Dec 2 with 2177 views | J2BLUE |
He's doing ok. Can't ask for much more at this point. I'm not a fan of rotating the keepers and 1-2 other questionable decisions but he's achieving the goal so far. Wouldn't be surprised if he has gone by Christmas 2020 if we go up though. |  |
| |
| Unfortunately the stats for..... on 10:14 - Dec 2 with 2154 views | wkj |
| Unfortunately the stats for..... on 10:08 - Dec 2 by Bloots |
....both of those are often the same.
That's the issue. |
Even before we were impoverished on the goal front people were leaning on that. A good selection of complaints for 1 goal wins. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:27 - Dec 2 with 2095 views | Guthrum |
As pointed out yesterday, the unforced rotation has mainly been in games outside the League. |  |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:36 - Dec 2 with 2063 views | unstableblue |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:06 - Dec 2 by wkj |
People are starting to cling on to that Shots on Target statistic, in some cases more so than goals scored. |
That blocked shot debacle the other day was ridiculous - the dissenters were negating goal bound efforts - "don't count" - that were stopped via hand ball and being cleared off the line, with little chance the keeper would have reached | |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:39 - Dec 2 with 2046 views | Guthrum |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:36 - Dec 2 by unstableblue |
That blocked shot debacle the other day was ridiculous - the dissenters were negating goal bound efforts - "don't count" - that were stopped via hand ball and being cleared off the line, with little chance the keeper would have reached |
Also, I keep asking, is a narrow miss really worse than hitting the ball straight to the 'keeper? | |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:43 - Dec 2 with 2021 views | JakeITFC |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:39 - Dec 2 by Guthrum |
Also, I keep asking, is a narrow miss really worse than hitting the ball straight to the 'keeper? |
In isolation, no, but in long-term statistical analysis shots on target (or xG) are a good metric for measuring a teams performance.
I’m not anti-Lambert by any stretch, but our lack of chance creation should be a cause for concern over time. |  | | |
| The one advantage of creating so few chances.... on 10:46 - Dec 2 with 2005 views | Bloots |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:36 - Dec 2 by unstableblue |
That blocked shot debacle the other day was ridiculous - the dissenters were negating goal bound efforts - "don't count" - that were stopped via hand ball and being cleared off the line, with little chance the keeper would have reached |
....is that we can all remember each one we do have individually.
Rock 'n' roll football. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:49 - Dec 2 with 1994 views | patrickswell |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 09:51 - Dec 2 by unstableblue |
I think you make a key point in that it can take a long long time to turn around a failing team, to change attitudes and playing systems. Easy to jettison a manager or for fans to become negative before that takes place. So easy to become impatient.
I’ve see JUST enough from Lambert’s teams/systems this season to suggest some progress is being made, I though elements of the Blackpool game - against a well drilled, physical, defensive, form side - had real merit. And so lazy to suggest otherwise.
Also people are underestimating just how muxh opposition are upping their game against us this season.
One other point - I definitely think Mick worked miracles on the budget to keep us mid table; but in some ways the restrictive footballing practices he embedded to grind out those results is one of the challenges Lambert has inherited. We were outplayed and our possession statted regularly in Micks last two seasons. Some posters were reminiscent of those times ahead of these... which is a bit silly, albeit we are in League One!!! |
The restrictive football practices under Mick line needs putting to bed. Only Chambers and Skuse currently remain from that era who have consistently played, while others like Downes,Rowe Dozzell, Huws and Bishop were either used sparingly due to their youth (Downes went on loan halfway through 17-18, Rowe barely played under him) or saw more of Mick when he popped into the treatment room to say hello rather than working in training sessions or sitting in on team meetings with him.
Lambert’s own signings appear to have made positive contributions...which leaves us with those from the Hurst era. Have any of them really stepped up and made you think, “Yeah, they’re going to control games for us.”
Edit - in terms of the OP, I haven’t seen enough of the team to make a judgement on the finer details. In broader terms, I can’t be too critical given that we are right in the promotion shake-up and as, already said, it doesn’t feel like Lambert’s got “his” team together yet. I think if we do go up, he has some big decisions to make about players. [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 11:09]
|  | | |
| Hopefully he'll be gone.... on 10:49 - Dec 2 with 1986 views | Bloots |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:12 - Dec 2 by J2BLUE |
He's doing ok. Can't ask for much more at this point. I'm not a fan of rotating the keepers and 1-2 other questionable decisions but he's achieving the goal so far. Wouldn't be surprised if he has gone by Christmas 2020 if we go up though. |
....by the start of next season, whether we go up or not. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:51 - Dec 2 with 1984 views | Darth_Koont |
I'm happy enough with where we're sitting and most of Lambert's transfer decisions - although overall I do think we've accumulated too big of a squad.
But after a year's evidence I think it's fair to believe we're playing the way he wants us to play and not sure we're going to see the higher gear I was waiting for. Again, not a problem this year if we go up but I was hoping for more especially to make absolutely sure of promotion and indicate we're not just going to be a yo-yo club at this level. |  |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:55 - Dec 2 with 1963 views | Guthrum |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:43 - Dec 2 by JakeITFC |
In isolation, no, but in long-term statistical analysis shots on target (or xG) are a good metric for measuring a teams performance.
I’m not anti-Lambert by any stretch, but our lack of chance creation should be a cause for concern over time. |
Lack of chance creation is a slightly different problem. For that you should be considering all shots, where they were taken from (i.e. long-range attempts or good, close-in goes), plus attacks which got into promising positions but which did not result in a shot at all (confidence, decisionmaking, availability of support, passing instead of shooting, crowded out and dispossessed by the defence, etc.).
Shots on target is, in isolation, not a particularly meaningful statistic, except it means that your players are prepared to give it a go, from whatever range or angle, however much accuracy with regard to evading the 'keeper and any level of power. Even then, I'd say that a striker consistently shaving the outside of the post is making a better attempt to score than one who bunts it to the obvious place, where the goalie is almost certainly standing.
Might be better to look at how often strikers make the goalie "save" rather than just "catch" (including those where he feels the need to leap even though the ball is actually going just wide or high). [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 10:59]
| |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:56 - Dec 2 with 1959 views | davblue |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:49 - Dec 2 by patrickswell |
The restrictive football practices under Mick line needs putting to bed. Only Chambers and Skuse currently remain from that era who have consistently played, while others like Downes,Rowe Dozzell, Huws and Bishop were either used sparingly due to their youth (Downes went on loan halfway through 17-18, Rowe barely played under him) or saw more of Mick when he popped into the treatment room to say hello rather than working in training sessions or sitting in on team meetings with him.
Lambert’s own signings appear to have made positive contributions...which leaves us with those from the Hurst era. Have any of them really stepped up and made you think, “Yeah, they’re going to control games for us.”
Edit - in terms of the OP, I haven’t seen enough of the team to make a judgement on the finer details. In broader terms, I can’t be too critical given that we are right in the promotion shake-up and as, already said, it doesn’t feel like Lambert’s got “his” team together yet. I think if we do go up, he has some big decisions to make about players. [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 11:09]
|
Nsiala isn't up to it, and the jury is still very much out on Nolan and Donacien and Jackson and Edwards imo. |  | | |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:56 - Dec 2 with 1961 views | wkj |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:51 - Dec 2 by Darth_Koont |
I'm happy enough with where we're sitting and most of Lambert's transfer decisions - although overall I do think we've accumulated too big of a squad.
But after a year's evidence I think it's fair to believe we're playing the way he wants us to play and not sure we're going to see the higher gear I was waiting for. Again, not a problem this year if we go up but I was hoping for more especially to make absolutely sure of promotion and indicate we're not just going to be a yo-yo club at this level. |
That is the thing, we have a number of players who are here that probably shouldn't be here, and we haven't been able to shift them. I don't like being too negative towards town players as a general rule, but there are some that when they appear on the squad list you expect something bad to happen, Nsiala conceeding a penalty or free kick in a difficult position for example. | |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:59 - Dec 2 with 1944 views | wkj |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:56 - Dec 2 by davblue |
Nsiala isn't up to it, and the jury is still very much out on Nolan and Donacien and Jackson and Edwards imo. |
I think Nolan and Jackson have earned their stripes at this level, more so than Norwood in my opinion. | |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 11:01 - Dec 2 with 1932 views | JakeITFC |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:55 - Dec 2 by Guthrum |
Lack of chance creation is a slightly different problem. For that you should be considering all shots, where they were taken from (i.e. long-range attempts or good, close-in goes), plus attacks which got into promising positions but which did not result in a shot at all (confidence, decisionmaking, availability of support, passing instead of shooting, crowded out and dispossessed by the defence, etc.).
Shots on target is, in isolation, not a particularly meaningful statistic, except it means that your players are prepared to give it a go, from whatever range or angle, however much accuracy with regard to evading the 'keeper and any level of power. Even then, I'd say that a striker consistently shaving the outside of the post is making a better attempt to score than one who bunts it to the obvious place, where the goalie is almost certainly standing.
Might be better to look at how often strikers make the goalie "save" rather than just "catch" (including those where he feels the need to leap even though the ball is actually going just wide or high). [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 10:59]
|
That’s what xG does.
We aren’t creating much, we don’t have many shots and that is a problem. It was a massive criticism in the last days of McCarthy and it is therefore only fair that it is a criticism now for this side. It’s my personal opinion that the reasons for this are different for both managers, but it is a problem all the same. | | | |
| That's all very well, but.... on 11:01 - Dec 2 with 1936 views | Bloots |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 10:55 - Dec 2 by Guthrum |
Lack of chance creation is a slightly different problem. For that you should be considering all shots, where they were taken from (i.e. long-range attempts or good, close-in goes), plus attacks which got into promising positions but which did not result in a shot at all (confidence, decisionmaking, availability of support, passing instead of shooting, crowded out and dispossessed by the defence, etc.).
Shots on target is, in isolation, not a particularly meaningful statistic, except it means that your players are prepared to give it a go, from whatever range or angle, however much accuracy with regard to evading the 'keeper and any level of power. Even then, I'd say that a striker consistently shaving the outside of the post is making a better attempt to score than one who bunts it to the obvious place, where the goalie is almost certainly standing.
Might be better to look at how often strikers make the goalie "save" rather than just "catch" (including those where he feels the need to leap even though the ball is actually going just wide or high). [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 10:59]
|
....I expect that even if we just used "shots" as a metric we'd still look pathetic.
(I'm basing this on nothing other than just my general impression having watched us play) | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 11:08 - Dec 2 with 1889 views | MrTown |
My thoughts for what it is not worth:
First things first, Lambert is a great PR man, he's been nothing but fantastic with the fans and the fans have liekwise been fantatsic with him, it is lovely having that positive atmosphere back at Portman Road since Mick McCarthy left.
As for on field matters, he is still the manager of the club, he is still the one who makes and controls the desicions of the playing side of the club and should performances be below par then ultimately it will fall on his shoulders. I don't think anyone on here is stupid enough to suggest that Lambert should be sacked but he is not immune from critism and fustration by any stetch of the imagination.
I do question some of his descions, constant chopping of the team at this early stage is not something I am a massive fan of, I like it when a team is settled by Christmas and it almost picks itself (bar injuries and 1 or 2 rotations). I question his substitutions, often leaving it too late for subs to make an impact, Alan Judge got 5 minutes of football against Blackpool/Wycombe off the back of one of his better performances against Lincoln and his first goal.
The biggest thing for me is the style, what is it exactly? what is he coaching his players. The players lack so much cohesion/ideas/invention and creativity. The lack of movement is so poor and we wonder why we cant breakdown teams who camp in against, everything is so and in front of the opposition.
I know its a far fetched comparison, but I was watching Ajax yesterday, and they were 2-0 down after 15 minutes. After that they were just sensational, real ability, movement, vision creativity, clinical, ideas and invention, quick football. Ended up beating FC Twente 5-2. |  |
| |
| Negativity on board to Lambert yesterday - is it justified? on 11:10 - Dec 2 with 1879 views | artsbossbeard |
I'm kinda surprised by the Comical Ali levels of posts on here and on social media.
Mick was a defensive minded coach, happy to take a point and not concede when playing one up front. At home.
Hardly a whimper on this under PL. And we're playing in a pub league.
I'm far from anti-PL, to clarify. |  |
| Please note: prior to hitting the post button, I've double checked for anything that could be construed as "Anti Semitic" and to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Anything deemed to be of a Xenophobic nature is therefore purely accidental or down to your own misconstruing. | | Poll: | Raining in IP8 - shall I get the washing in? |
| |
| Just checked, we are 12th..... on 11:12 - Dec 2 with 1864 views | Bloots |
| That's all very well, but.... on 11:01 - Dec 2 by Bloots |
....I expect that even if we just used "shots" as a metric we'd still look pathetic.
(I'm basing this on nothing other than just my general impression having watched us play) |
....when looking at average shots per match so far. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
