There's been a lot of grumbling on here about CH lacking a Plan B. Some of this is prompted by comparisons with Paul Lambert, who for much of his time in charge seemed to have no Plan A, let alone a Plan B. The nearest PL came to a settled formation was the diamond, but even then I would call it his most frequently chosen formation rather than his "settled" one. People seem to forget how often, under Lambert, we were mystified by constant team changes and out-of-the-blue experimentation with formations and tactics; remember the hammerings that three at the back brought us? Then there was also PL's propensity for early substitutions, sometimes at half-time, often after 50 or 55 minutes. The positive interpretation of this is that Lambert was exceptional at reading what was happening in real time on the pitch, and decisive in making consequential adjustments. The less positive interpretation is that, having no settled formation or "Plan A", PL had no alternative but to wait to see how things went once the game started, and then decide what was needed at any given moment on the day. As it turned out, what was often needed was throwing caution to the winds and bringing on every available attacking player to try and claw back a deficit or nick a win out of nothing. Well, there's no arguing with the view that Lambert's "method" worked in his time at Carrow Road. But it doesn't seem to be working currently at Villa Park. And speaking for myself, I don't see it as a viable long-term approach in either of the two top divisions. If you look at comparable sides to us in the current Premier League -- Swansea, Stoke, West Brom, Wigan -- all are built on a settled way of playing inculcated and refined over a number of years, a way of playing that defines them, and to which they adhere game after game. That's not to say their managers don't make adjustments and substitutions; they do. But they are adjustments and substitutions which amount to no more than fine tuning the team's settled style of play. Last season, after we did the double over Swansea, a lot was made of the fact that Rogers' team "had no Plan B". Well, Laudrup's team has no Plan B either. The difference is that Laudrup has improved the quality of the squad. The fact that Chris Hughton operates very differently from Lambert is not a criticism of him. There are many different ways to skin a cat. As I pointed out on another thread, after 20 games our record this season was virtually identical to our record at the same stage last season, the only disparity being that this season we were 4 goals worse of in terms of GD. Even now we are only 3 points worse off than last season after 23 games. We finished last season on 47 points, i.e. with 11 points to spare, and a GD of -14. We are currently on target to do much the same again in what is generally agreed to be a somewhat more competitive league. What is there to grumble about? After Saturday's game CH explained exactly why he did NOT make the sort of changes some on here said he should have made at half-time i.e. gone 4-4-2 and tried to "get at" Liverpool. His intention was to get the team, in particular the midfield, to do what they did well early on but signally failed to do as the game progressed, i.e. press Liverpool higher up the field so, as CH put it, getting a foothold back in the game BEFORE making his attacking substitutions. In the event the plan failed. But it did not fail because the strategy was flawed, or CH got his tactics wrong, or failed to change things early enough. It failed because the team didn't follow instructions and played badly, particularly the midfield.
Good read Robbie You are certainly right on Lambert who "flew by the seat of his pants" on most occasions. CH is completely different,and IMO is more streetwise than Lambert.
