Many (not me) have been saying for several months they can't wait until January to sign the players that will keep us up. I have been saying all along that January is too late anyway. I didn't say it's easy. I said it's a lot of hard work. But there is business to be done in January and for me what we needed to do was sign a couple of these types of players to improve the squad and then build on it gradually each window. Lambert has criticised contracts and loans in the press, but hasn't done anything differently. He certainly hasn't 'stood up to Evans'.
Judging by comments on social media then unlike most Town fans at the moment, I can just see through Lambert's bullshit and I take an objective and less emotional approach to our situation. That's about all there is to it really. We are in an extraordinary situation. It would be nice to just chatting about the footie but as long as the club is run by Evans there will be some fans who have blind faith / optimism and others that just see the club being run into the ground, ridiculous decision after ridiculous decision and see it for what it is, a complete and utter farce. We have this extraordinary narrative at the moment that dictates that anyone who doesn't have blind faith / is not happy with Evans getting away with murder / is angry about the situation is 'not behind the team'.
I would say there's alot of emotion in what you write especially as it sometimes appears contradictory but that's why we support a football club and contribute to this forum. You just seem to see things very black and white and I see shades of grey.
Certainly I’m emotional after a game or if people are being ****ty, but I wouldn’t make a strategic decision in an emotional state. There are shades of grey and nuances, but we are nowhere near being in a position to worry about those at the moment. It is a black and white situation, we are absolutely rubbish, we are being run into the ground and our legacy is being dismantled. Worse than that, fans are buying into the propoganda coming out of the club and so instead of revolting they are cheering as the disaster unfolds.
Some fans need to wake up, not so much here, but what I’m reading on social media. Paul Lambert love in.
While I think the on-pitch improvements under Lambert have been minimal, at best, and I do question the wisdom of promising him another season considering his results so far, I don't blame some supporters for reacting the way they have. When did we last have a manager who plays a good PR game, seems to genuinely care about the club, and seeks to collaborate with the former players and the supporters? This time last year, the manager in charge was swearing at the club's own supporters and generally treating supporters with barely disguised contempt. The confusion I have around your viewpoints, Hampy, is why you are so resentful and apoplectic over Lambert, who has a similar record to Hurst and less time to implement his changes, in contrast to Paul Hurst, who ultimately saddled this squad with the poor standard of players we've witnessed over the past several months and only won one match here, but who you repeatedly attempt to defend? I get that you were initially a big supporter of Hurst and a pessimist over Lambert's appointment, much like myself, but you seem unable or unwilling to provide any nuance to your ultimate viewpoint of Paul Lambert equals bad and Paul Hurst equals good or unlucky.
The difference is that Hurst was coming in and breaking some eggs to make his omelette. This ruffled the feathers of pros who up until then had had an easy ride. Tactically I didn’t agree with a lot of what he did. In terms of recruitment, I think he took a first step to improving the squad. It was clear we were in a relegation fight, but improving and laying some foundations and with a fairly good chance of retaining our Championship status. Contrast this with Lambert, I could see this coming a mile off as soon as he was appointed and before a ball had been kicked. His approach to setting us up for games is all wrong. Defensively we are a walkover and the squad is no stronger than it was in December. Had to laugh at the calibre of striker he has brought in - it’s one thing to take a risk on a couple of strikers from the lower leagues, but it’s quite another to sign a couple of strikers who simply do not find the net. He didn’t seem to realise the magnitude of what was required until he was a couple of months into the job. He has failed at every club since he left Norwich, why would anyone expect anything different of him at Town? I wouldn’t say he plays a good PR game, brazenly bribing and sweettalking is not going to do anyone any good in the long run. I was open to being wrong, waiting for performances or results to improve - but in fact I am seeing us deteriorate on the pitch instead. I am still open to getting a surprise great performance at Villa, and will be every week. But if we don’t get some momentum going this year then next year is going to be many times worse. I am not enjoying watching the club sleepwalking toward this fate whilst the supporters laud and cheer this man as the messiah. On this forum whatever people’s views at least people have their eyes open, what I am reading on social media beggars belief. I would also say in terms of the respective records, although it’s not a major point because the timescales are too short - it’s not comparing like for like. 3 draws don’t equate to 1 win. Playing with none of your own signings doesn’t equate to having had a summer window. Playing games with players bedded in doesn’t equate to playing games at the start of the season. And getting results against bottom clubs doesn’t equate to getting results against top ones. It’s a worthwhile comparison for proving or disproving improvement in our fortunes but not for the respective managers’ abilities. To summarise and clarify: Hurst = poor but naive. Lambert = poor and disingenuous.
Seriously what is your obsession with this ' easy ride ' crap. It's absolutely beyond me. What basis do you have for this? Do you watch training under every manager, are you the Leeds spy!? I have no time for Keane / Hurst - however have no doubt it would have been difficult for players in training, effort required. Likewise the same under any manager. Regarding Lambert though - I DO agree with the sun shining out of his ass far too much. I massively appreciate everything off the pitch, it's been superb. Best manager I can recall for PR - that includes Royle / Burley / best manager in my lifetime for that at Portman Road - superb. However, first and foremost his mandate ( for me anyway ) was to keep us in the division. We were four points off safety under Hurst - and 12 games on, we're now 7 points off safety. PPG was 0.75 under Hurst, and the same under Lambert. Absolutely NO improvement whatsoever from a results perspective, and that must change.
Hi Westy I think the case for that argument is pretty clear because the players like Grant Ward and Luke Chambers, as well as Hurst, have talked about it publicly.
Hurst perhaps was more intense / did training differently than Mick - no idea what Lambert does - but I don't think the players had an easy ride under Mick - as I doubt they are under Lambert now. Under any manager players will have to work hard in training.
Putting aside your rather baseless claim that players were giving an 'easy' ride in training under Mick, I think it's a bit of a stretch that Mick's Ipswich sides lacked effort. From the matches I saw under Mick, even during the last couple of seasons where our decline started to set in, we never looked lazy or like we were going through the motions. Lacking quality and effective, joined-up attacking coaching, sure, but not a lack of effort. I believe players were probably becoming accustomed to Mick's style of training, and after six years at the club some players could understandably get into a comfort zone, but an 'easy ride' under old school Mick McCarty? I find that hard to believe. Regarding Hurst, one interpretation could be Hurst made the required changes to the squad and culture, yet was undermined by a senior core of players who craved for somebody more experienced. Another interpretation could be that Hurst changed far too much, too quickly and went about it in an out-of-touch, insensitive manner. If we are to believe all, or even some of the anecdotes coming out from the club following his sacking, then I would completely understand why some of the players were fed up of him and his assistant. And naivety should not be an catch-all excuse for incompetence. Replacing an experienced spine of a team, enforced or not, with an over-reliance of several lower league players, two of whom from Shrewsbury didn't even have a proper pre-season, was straight up poor planning and management. Shipping out most of the in-form young players out on loan was a potentially costly oversight, considering the lack of depth in the squad. You've rightly underlined Hurst's in-game tactical inconsistency and weaknesses. Needless to say, his reversion to direct, defensive football after a few games, and hoping that Mick approach would work with a weaker calibre of players than before was always going to end in tears. He was a poor manager. Arguably the worst in our history. I'd forgive Hurst slightly in that he had no experienced support structure at the club, when (with the benefit of hindsight) he should have had, and the fact our owner was completely ignorant of the challenges Hurst would have to face. Like a few on here, including yourself, I am not overly keen on Lambert. I didn't think much of his appointment, as he struck me as part of the wider culture in English football of relying on a pool of big name, middle-aged, failed British managers who have a knack of getting decent jobs against all logic (not that I'd call us a catch). Performances have improved slightly, I accept that, we've actually taken leads under Lambert, and we aren't being outplayed to the extent Hurst's sides did where sides would frequently batter us for the first hour, grab a couple of goals, then take their feet off the pedal. But as Westy says, you're ultimately judged on your results and Lambert's have not been much better. I get the point that we probably need stability and we are not a club traditionally associated with a chop and change approach to hiring managers. It's not a good look, in my opinion. But is Lambert the best we can do? If we meekly bow out and get relegated, should he be rewarded? Not in my opinion. And while a lot of fans are lapping up his positive PR, they are overlooking serious issues and concerns on the pitch, such as Lambert's typically late, ineffective substitutions, poor selection policy (such as an unfit Skuse, persisting with Spence for so long, and persevering with Sears out wide), and his general, misguided approach to getting us to over-attack at the cost of defensive solidity. Also, what's with the apparent consensus on Twitter and TWTD that if we got relegated under Lambert, he'd magically get us up the season after? He did it once, with Norwich, a decade ago. And even then he had a brilliant support structure there, a great coach in Ian Culverhouse, and a more positive atmosphere within the club and fanbase. The latter point I get he's trying to replicate here. So yes, I'm concerned. Apologies for the long read!
Hi gents Let's not conflate two issues here. McCarthy's training methods were more relaxed than Hurst's. I'm sure you would both agree. That's not to say McCarthy's training methods were not adequate or professional. The results he achieved show they were. Fast forward to the early part of this season. Hurst appears to have ruffled some feathers by demanding more from his players in terms of their fitness levels and training input. Grant Ward likened the fitness monitoring techniques to those he experienced at Spurs. Those are facts. My interpretation from soundbites is that some players were not used to the intensity of and resented the new training methods and regime and so from that I infer that they had an easy ride from McCarthy. I also believe some players were very comfortable and not challenged by McCarthy. Now forget where we are at this moment. Where did we want the club to be that led us to want to make a change of manager in the first place? Challenging for the play offs as a minimum and really to be competing for a place in the Premier League. To do that you have to improve standards. Standards of tactics, standards of fitness, standards of player. I absolutely back Hurst over this and not players who pick up a fortune in salary and are not prepared to work as top athletes and go whinging to the press. We can speculate over this issue of undermining, we can speculate over doing things too quickly and a lack of respect. What was required at that point was the owner to publicly back the manager and assert his authority but instead he's made a change and we are now where we are. These are some facts and some opinions but they certainly are not baseless. To answer your second point nuggets, I don't believe for one moment that Hurst is incompetent so naive is the right word for me to use. and to answer your third point - none of us has a crystal ball but we are certainly not seeing the kind of impact that has occurred at Man United to making a positive change so who knows where we would finish next season, but the least we can say is that running away with first place seems incredibly unlikely.
For me, the main difference between hurst and lambert is I can see what Lambert is trying to do. Granted, I was in hursts corner and would like to have seen him being given longer but the 1 thing I couldn’t understand was him making 1/2 a dozen changes every game. Lambert tries to keep a fairly settled side. Granted the results are about the same but I believe that this is because the players we have are just not good enough.
I am just frankly baffled by this way of looking at things, it entirely lets Lambert off the hook and he has signed six players.
I think it's far too early to write off Lambert's signings. I mean come on Hampy, we've had two games with the new signings and we've got a 50% win ratio. Hardly a colossal failure. Before those matches, Lambert's had the same squad as Hurst, with the disadvantage of not assembling the squad, not having a pre-season with them, and taking over with form and confidence at rock bottom.
I'm open to being pleasantly surprised nuggets but I think we all know we've signed two strong players and in all likelihood four turkeys this window. In spite of that it still lets Lambert off the hook. He knew (or should have done some research into) the playing squad and he's going to be on a hell of a lot of money.
How many turkeys did Hurst bring in? Turkey upon turkey upon turkey. I honestly cannot quite fathom your obsession with sticking up Hurst / Keane for instance, yet mocking McCarthy for year upon year, and seeming to take great delight in ripping the hell into Lambert. Make no mistake - for once I AGREE with something you're saying regarding Lambert - we're on the same page there regarding his results. Absolutely pitiful. No improvement made from Hurst whatsoever. However, that's where it ends really. Lambert inherited an absolute shower of s*** with confidence / morale and everything else at rock bottom due to the ' work ' Hurst and Doig did around the place.
