One of our Ipswich friends recently started a thread on this topic as a blatant attempt at a wind-up. I'd like to start a more thoughtful one. I'd like to stress this is not meant to be in any way divisive - just a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each manager. I think Lambert had taken us as far as he could. He was chomping at the bit to move on to other challenges. He thought he'd got this at Villa, but it turns out he is having to do exactly the same there as he did for us (buy lower league players and motivate them into becoming better). If he had stayed with us, I feel sure his ambition would have grown even stronger and he would have abandoned us halfway through the season (for Spurs?), which would have left us in a much worse situation than when he actually decided to go in close season. Lambert was definitely the right person for the last three seasons because of how he inspired players and got them to play without fear. I doubt if Hughton could have barnstormed up the divisions in the same way. We owe Lambert a great deal. However, now we need to consolidate, and I think and hope that Hughton will be much better than Lambert in this role. For all his tactical sharpness during matches, Lambert never really did much to solve the defensive problems and structural weaknesses in the team, and Hughton is now working hard to do this. He is a calmer presence all round. The gung-ho days have gone - but they had to go if we didn't want to become another Blackpool. We want to build a club with a solid base and I'm not sure Lambert had the patience or persistence to do this. I'd also say that Lambert was lucky, although he rode this luck very well. There were some pretty poor teams in last year's Prem. Hughton is less lucky - this year's Prem looks a bit of a monster, with no obvious candidates for whipping boys (even QPR have some very good players, if only they can become a team). So I don't think either manager is 'better' than the other. They each have their own qualities and, most importantly, I think we've got them in the right order.
Excellent post VC and I was considering one along the same lines. Our failure last year was our tendency to 'leak' goals and had we not had a change of manager and certainly personnel in defence, then I feel we would have continued in the same vein this season and be 'nailed-on' certainties for relegation. We definitely needed a change of style to protect our overworked defence and if the manner in which we played at WHL can be replicated and perhaps bettered, then I'm certain we'll be able to stay up. I agree that there are no obvious relegation candidates and even though Saints are bottom, they have had some VERY tough games and fully expect to see them slowls clmbing out of the relegation zone - especially with the players they have been able to buy. Having said that, I'm very happy with CH's buys and he has concentrated on shoring up the weakest areas (loging to see JB in full flow!!!). I also feel that we'll see less 'tinkering' with the team under CH and I guess that may led to some dissatisfied players, but that may work to our advantage in that the players who aren't either starting or on the bench will try harder to be get in the team. One of PL's greates achievements was his ability to change tsactics during a match without changing players. Our win at the Liberty last season highlighted that ability IMO and I thoughtt that E Bennett played the 'Hoolahan role' better than Hoolahan Yes, it is a very much tougher league this time round and I feel our next game is important in that I'd like to see us get our first win, but again feel that we need a performance similar or better than the last two. I guess the 'Jury is out' for most fans, but I'm 100% behind CH in the same way as I was 100% behind JR (John Ruddy) from day 1 and if CH can have similar success ........
i'll be honest vietnam, when i first read the headline i thought 'oh god no, he's going to claim hughton is already better than lambert', but actually its a very astute article - really enjoyed it. its still early days in the hughton reign so impossible to compare him to lambert in terms of what he can achieve but i totally agree that he is the right man at the right time for us. the early signs are good. the thing i was most concerned about was that the team may lose their bond and unity formed over previous years, what with so many changes etc, but so far, the bond appears still strong. yes the fulham result (well, the scoreline, i think we felt we might get beat there) was a shock to the system but i said it at the time that it probably helps long term as hughton is left in no doubt as to what work needed doing. had we come away with a narrow defeat we may not have had the same personnel as we do now. the 'gung ho' approach was fantastic to watch and worked tremendously well for us but there were signs it was catching up with us towards the end of last season. results were still decent on the whole but the goals against column was terrible. it was only ever going to lead to one thing in the end - relegation. we needed making more stable on the pitch - perhaps its obvious now looking back because our climb was so steep and quick that we were always likely to have weak spots as there was never enough time to fix them! i like hughton, always have done. i like the way he plays possession football but can also adjust tactics, similar to lambert though not as dynamic during matches (but then who is?), but i've been impressed by his calmness and the way he has gone about his business. when lambert came in the club desperately needed a disciplinarian, someone who could come in and 'kick some ass' for want of a better expression. that situation has changed now and what we needed was a more calm and relaxed regime and that's what we've got. lambert was one of the best things to EVER happen to our club but as soon as his time was up it was vital to get the right replacement and honestly, if people don't trust mcnally's judgement on managerial appointments yet, then they probably never will! people may see this as negative and i'm sure it won't come to it but even if we were to go down this season, and it is a realistic possibility and will be for the foreseeable seasons to come because its a difficult division, i'd be very keen for hughton to be given the chance and full backing to take us back up immediately. i think where the media have got confused, and possibly some of our rivals fans, is that they see losing lambert as a major problem, whereas to us, we see it as a chance to right a few wrongs. lambert never finished the job in my opinion but what he has left is something very good to build on.
Find any comparison difficult as even so close to Lambo going so much has changed, I think the PL is stronger this year for the clubs outside the top 6 so points will be harder to come by. Lambo was excellent and we can never thank him enough but his ambition meant his tenure was going to be in question and that meant uncertainty Hewtun appears calmer and more controlled in his personal ambition and will supply us with a solid platform if we give the time and space , I think he is a great appointment to develop the club
Both are very different and I think that's a good thing. But both are/were very good. I think they are both the right men at the right time in their eras, but comparing them is useless.
I will go along with that I think one thing CH will give the team is a feeling of stability and a little more certainty and not just in terms of team selection (I feel he will chop and change the team much less than PL did, especially if he is going to adopt 4-4-2 away from home! - oh happy days ) When I say "feeling of stability and a little more certainty", I am of course referring to his tenure as manager. I am sure he has his personal ambitions, as do most other managers but I feel they are not likely to become so well known outside of his own thoughts. PL, although he never really came out and said it, was always going to move on to something "bigger and better" at some point and most of us felt he would jump ship to achieve that at the earliest opportunity, and so it proved to be. If the club is stable and the team performs to an acceptable level over the next 3-4 years (or beyond) I can see CH remaining at the club unless his head is also turned by another club. The difference here is, he is not taking the club to two successive promotions (the main factor in everyone taking notice of PL), he will (hopefully) just be performing and admirable balancing act and keeping us in the top league without looking "brilliant" in his achievement.
Dead right Thai. How could the board feel comfortable handing over the largest amount available for team building in decades without real assurances from PL about his commitment to the club? From the little that has leaked out, it appears it almost unravelled last summer, but the board judged correctly that that was no time to capsize the boat (apologies for the mixed metaphors in that sentence). This time round I suspect they asked for more of a commitment than PL was prepared to make. Just guessing, but that's my personal take on the events immediately post-season. Remember how tetchy PL was with questions about his future around the time of Adam Drury's testimonial.
I think the time was right to bring in a new manager - especially one who could resolve our defensive frailties and IMO, that is exactly what we have in CH. I'm confident that CH will be able to keep us in the Prem - though it will not be easy, especially when you consider the amount of money that the 3 promoted teams and QPR especially have spent on transfers this summer. However what is apparent from our last 2 games is that the team spirit and togetherness is still there from previous seasons and I'm sure that will 'stand us in good stead' for the battles ahead!!
Remember the interview with lambo around the end of the season where he stated he "didnt know how much further he could take Norwich?" I think that was the key to most of what happened, Lambo felt we had peaked after three massive seasons of giant strides forwards and he wasn't the right man to take us on from there in smaller baby steps. Lambo being very astute, in my opinion, was right in his judgement of that, I dont think his approach would have taken us much further and he is hugely ambitious (though I'd question his decision to go to Villa!). From what I've seen so far (and it is very early days) I suspect Hughton IS the man to take us forward in smaller steps from here. I like what I've seen so far and may we continue the progression that has been evident over the last two games.
I don't think either Lambert or CH have enough money to make our defence too much stronger. However I believe CH knows that since the Fulham debacle, he has to pick the right players for the right position for the right job. I think on the evidence of our midfield play in the last two games that we will be vulnerable at times but I didn't get that sudden chill when somebody makes a break on us. In fact Spurs goal came from indecision by Howson when we were in possession rather than good build up play by Spurs. I believe he can make us attractive to watch but harder to break down. And I have to say, we did look very fit. Our substitutions have come late in the games rather than the Lambert 60 minute change.
Good post and discussion this. Like others, I will always credit Lambert fully for what he did over the last three years. My feeling about his comment "didnt know how much further he could take Norwich?" reflected a fear that City's development under him was near to a plateau. I think this may have been right and it was time for City to have a fresh managerial vision. That is what CH brings, IMO. Lambert has another challenge at Villa, whereas CH is looking for 'evolution not revolution', which is exactly what City now need, IMO. Each is right for their new situation, and that is good for both clubs. Finally, I feel that CH brings maturity and experience that Lambert only had it part, and this will make a big difference in the new season.
For me it's far too early to make meaningful comparisons between the two. If we finish above Villa then the facts will speak for themselves. None of us know whether PL would have spent the available funds to shore up the defence as CH has done. PL didn't appear too phased at losing the skipper which CH was able to resolve so maybe this implies that he would have got rid of Holty and spent the budget on enhancing the forward line? I think that PL could have taken NCFC further but that him staying represented a huge gamble on his part. Had he stayed and relegated us then it would have taken the shine off his first three seasons whereas he may think that a. Villa are more likely to stay up than Norwich b. Villa have more cash to spend than Norwich c. Even if Villa go down it was the hated McCleish's team and PL has proven he can get a club promoted d. Villa are a better medium term bet than Norwich e. Villa are higher profile than Norwich and as such will raise his profile Whether any or all of the statements are true I can understand his motivation for going and only time will tell if he made the right decision or if Norwich did in appointing CH to replace him. Personally I think so far so good and look forward to us rolling Villa over twice this year!
PL's biggest problem is to start getting points on the board, one thing that will completely scupper his cv is being dismissed!
Completely agree. From an outsider's point of view it looks like Villa are in an even worse state than I thought. They look a very poor side and whilst Lerner has sold up his US franchise to raise some cash if PL's results don't improve then he may be out of the door before he can strengthen in January. This will not be a great entry on his cv and maybe he will look in an easterly direction with a pang of regret. Then again maybe Villa struggle through until January, pick up a couple of stars and start pushing for Europe and PL looks like a hero. I know which scenario I think is the more likely but who knows? As long as we take six points from them and finish above them I'm not too worried about waht happens to Villa.
Whilst I will always love PL for what he did for our club, and I would never wish anything detrimental on him, he is now the manager of a rival club and I will always look for us to better them!
I don't think Villa are in as bad a state as people are making out. If you look at their squad there are some good players, and enough experienced ones to balance the youngsters PL has brought in. His foray into Europe has yielded three decent signings in Vlaar, Benteke and El Ahmadi. May be a few hiccups to begin with but I don't really see them struggling for too long. 1 Agbonlahor, 2 Albrighton, 3 Bannan, 4 Bent, 5 Clark, 6 Delph, 7 Dunne, 8 El Ahmadi 9 Given, 10 Guzan, 11 Herd, 12 Holman, 13 Hutton, 14 Ireland, 15 Lichaj, 16 Lowton, 17 Westwood, 18 Marshall, 19 N'Zogbia, 20 Petrov, 21 Stevens, 22 Vlaar, 23 Warnock, 24 Bennett, 25 Benteke, Also, PL has had bad luck with illness and injuries, e.g. Agbonlahor, Albrighton, Dunne, and of course Petrov who he knew about from the start. Once the first three come back things will look up considerably.
Excellent thread and discussion. Rather than repeating, I would add one more thought...I come away from listening to a CH interview with a much better idea of his thinking than I ever did with PL. So, whilst PL obviously did a cracking job in getting the best out of players over his 3 years with the style he had, I just wonder whether the CH approach to media interaction represents an advance that, if he repeats this style when working with the players, may also eventually pay dividends from the players' perspective and team performance? I guess time will tell.
In my opinion it won't be as good a season to watch.I have a feeling that goals will be far fewer and whilst that will probably lead to more clean sheets that may not translate into more points simply because it's three points for a win and only one for a draw.Bottom six finish but hopefully not bottom three.
Hi bors, making a comparison between PL and CH is very difficult. PL had three very successful seasons and saw us promoted to the Premier via League One and the Championship. CH we have yet to assess. The one great difference between the two, to my mind, is the commitment to the club. PL would only sign a rolling contract which afforded him the opportunity to leave when he wished, whereas CH has committed himself to the club for the next three years; personally I'd rather have commitment other than the uncertainty PL's reign offered.
Exactly and PL has signed a 3 year contract at VP. According to press reports, he's near ther front of the 'sack race'!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/09/04/stoppage-time-england-sack-race-already-heating-up/
