Lambert

[kpturner]

I was there and imo we lost the match at 2pm when the team was announced. So many West Ham fans were smiling all over their faces.

They were not smiling at half time though were they. It was suicide city in the in the lounge Phil Parkes was hosting. The game plan was working up until that point. So we certainly did not lose the match at 2pm - we lost it two minutes into the 2nd half following two calamitous defensive errors. Edited 22 October, 2012 by kpturner

[Frank's cousin]

We can argue tactic, selection, substitutions all we like - all art of being a fan - but the upshot is IMHO, we have been punsihed simply because we dont seem able to maintain concentration for 94 minutes and focus consistently on what needs to be done. Blaming individuals is not helpful - its not their fault that their skill and quality is at best adequate for this level - and poor when not concentrating, but we do need to work on that mental strength - I think part of the problem is that in the CCC, those lapses which have always been there, were often never exploited - here against better and more organised attacking players, that lack of concentration leaves us woefully exposed and most often punished... and we have not really learned/adapted quickly enough.

[alpine_saint]

We can argue tactic' date=' selection, substitutions all we like - all art of being a fan - but the upshot is IMHO, we have been punsihed simply because we dont seem able to maintain concentration for 94 minutes and focus consistently on what needs to be done. Blaming individuals is not helpful - its not their fault that their skill and quality is at best adequate for this level - and poor when not concentrating, but we do need to work on that mental strength - I think part of the problem is that in the CCC, those lapses which have always been there, were often never exploited - here against better and more organised attacking players, that lack of concentration leaves us woefully exposed and most often punished... and we have not really learned/adapted quickly enough.[/quote']

 

Take a look back at our record against the top 6 or 7 clubs in the last third of last season.

 

This has been a car crash waiting to happen. Fonte and Fox have been sh*t for that long. The fact that we are here now 6 months later is inexcuseable.

 

Nice to know manager and chairman had communicated and had a clear common plan in advance. To me it feels like they turned to each other in Mid-May, shrugged their shoulders and said "now what ?"

[JackFrost]

Lambert has played 92 mins in the last two games.

 

For a player who scored 4 goals in 5 and a bit games up until the Fulham game when he was subbed after 67 mins that isn't good enough. (Don't forget he came off the bench against Man City as well). Not to mention his exemplary record in League 1/Championship.

 

If there has been a falling out I suspect Adkins is trying to send out the message that no one is indispensible. The problem is, RL is indispensible.

 

I really do hope NA can turn it around but he's starting to lose the players and the fans now.

[Frank's cousin]

Take a look back at our record against the top 6 or 7 clubs in the last third of last season.

 

This has been a car crash waiting to happen. Fonte and Fox have been sh*t for that long. The fact that we are here now 6 months later is inexcuseable.

 

Nice to know manager and chairman had communicated and had a clear common plan in advance. To me it feels like they turned to each other in Mid-May, shrugged their shoulders and said "now what ?"

 

fair enough, but i still think that if it was as easy as making a plan, updating it as we progressed, everyone would be doing it - there is the 'magic ingredient' that is missing and we all have our own opinion on what this is - understanding it and then making it happen is another matter.

 

We assume that because we dont have quality in certain areas, that nothing was done to try and sort this, as opposed to just not being able to close deals for the players we wanted for many reasons etc. The points made by all on this are all valid, but too often reactionary and not placed into a balanced context, which leads to speculation - and worse plays into the hands of those who seem happiest when there is something they can find fault in, especially when laying it at teh chairmans door...

[alpine_saint]

fair enough, but i still think that if it was as easy as making a plan, updating it as we progressed, everyone would be doing it - there is the 'magic ingredient' that is missing and we all have our own opinion on what this is - understanding it and then making it happen is another matter.

 

We assume that because we dont have quality in certain areas, that nothing was done to try and sort this, as opposed to just not being able to close deals for the players we wanted for many reasons etc. The points made by all on this are all valid, but too often reactionary and not placed into a balanced context, which leads to speculation - and worse plays into the hands of those who seem happiest when there is something they can find fault in, especially when laying it at teh chairmans door...

 

Something doesnt ring true in this "not closing deals" theory for me. We are talking about NC, the guy who dropped Elliot Ward off a tower block when it suited him. This dude has a Plan B, C and D.

 

Personally, I simply believe not enough importance was placed on defensive reinforcement over the summer. I'll bet NC had a Plan B for Gaston (if he wasnt already the Plan B)...

[Frank's cousin]

Lambert has played 92 mins in the last two games.

 

For a player who scored 4 goals in 5 and a bit games up until the Fulham game when he was subbed after 67 mins that isn't good enough. (Don't forget he came off the bench against Man City as well). Not to mention his exemplary record in League 1/Championship.

 

If there has been a falling out I suspect Adkins is trying to send out the message that no one is indispensible. The problem is, RL is indispensible.

 

I really do hope NA can turn it around but he's starting to lose the players and the fans now.

 

That is speculation...

 

Squad will alwyas be happy and together when we are winning each week... but when things go badly as now, there wll always be differences of opinion on what needs to be done about it - the 'falling out' is normal and natural, and not a problem - the key is how a manager copes with it and man manages the situation - this is a big test for Adkins and one which will stretch his experience and current abilities, ultimately one he will learn from... but thats the whole point. Most agree he has teh ability to become a first class top flight manager - but that needs time and experience, as well as luck. We have shown we can play at this level for 50-60 mins in every game, but need to find the formula for ensuring we can maintain that level for 90+ especially as defensive frailties still need addressing.

 

NO one is denying that we have issues that need address... but there is big variation in how fans are responding to it. For years we have said stability is the key... yet are the first to moan and whinge when we think a manager is not up to the task - Adkins will be, eventually, so you have to ask yourself whether you are prepared to stick with it no matter what and ensure we build experience and stabilty (which is my preferred appraoach), or go with the majority of prem chairman and hire and fire in panic mode...

[Frank's cousin]

Something doesnt ring true in this "not closing deals" theory for me. We are talking about NC, the guy who dropped Elliot Ward off a tower block when it suited him. This dude has a Plan B, C and D.

 

Personally, I simply believe not enough importance was placed on defensive reinforcement over the summer. I'll bet NC had a Plan B for Gaston (if he wasnt already the Plan B)...

 

OK it may be true and therefore a mistake in the planning - but what do we do? Do we panic and get all negative or do we try and work through i and see what January can bring?

 

I am not saying its wrong to try an danalyse all this, but the negative focus does no one any good really - we wont suddenly find ourselves world class defenders by pointing out we dont have any, and getting on NC and NIges back about it - we deal with it as best we can and try and support those players doing their best?

[sfc1976]

With the possible exception of Messi, it's largely irrelevant who you play upfront if you need to score 4 goals to win a match because you're going to lose regardless. Just strange that Adkins would choose to pile even more pressure on himself by not playing him fully. I mean, we're going to be relegated as things stand conceding 3 goals a game so it would seem strange to not utilise a player who is widely considered to be your best in the process.

[Thedelldays]

They were not smiling at half time though were they. It was suicide city in the in the lounge Phil Parkes was hosting. The game plan was working up until that point. So we certainly did not lose the match at 2pm - we lost it two minutes into the 2nd half following two calamitous defensive errors.

 

A game lasts 90 mins though

As soon as they up'd it in the 2nd half... We were 2 down

[shurlock]

Wham hardly upped their game though. Indeed at 2-1 down -after gifting them two goals- we looked the more likely to score. It took the pen, another needless gift, to kill it. Wigan upped their game against us; West Ham didn't.

[Thedelldays]

Wham hardly upped their game though. Indeed at 2-1 down -after gifting them two goals- we looked the more likely to score. It took the pen, another needless gift, to kill it. Wigan upped their game; West Ham certainly didn't.

 

Which is even more scary

[shurlock]

Which is even more scary

 

It is -and focussing on Lambert provides false comfort.

[Thedelldays]

It is -and focussing on Lambert provides false comfort.

 

I just can't help thinking that playing your best players... Is a good start

[Saint Garrett]

They clearly worked on marking Lambert though, because as soon as he came on they focused on him. I think it was a decent move to surprise the oppo by starting J-Rod. It's a tough one really, Yes Lambert is our talisman, but you can't seem to be too predictable in this league as if we do the same things every week, we'll get to the point where the goals dry up as well.

[kpturner]

A game lasts 90 mins though

Of course, but that is stating the obvious. Not sure what the relevance is to whether or not Lambert was present.

[david in sweden]

Lambert has played 92 mins in the last two games.

For a player who scored 4 goals in 5 and a bit games up until the Fulham game when he was subbed after 67 mins that isn't good enough

 

......I really do hope NA can turn it around but he's starting to lose the players and the fans now.

 

Of course he's done great things previously but...playing Rickie 90+ minutes every game... isn't going to give him the chance to last 38 games in this League....

 

....and as for the fans comment ..(!) I became a Saints fan 51 years ago - in the Div 3 South...some of the people on here who started supporting Saints.... when they were in L1 just 3 seasons ago.

 

If they are looking to ditch this manager now - after only 8 games....they shouldn't really call themselves " fans " - should they?

Edited 22 October, 2012 by david in sweden

[Wade Garrett]

Of course he's done great things previously but...playing Rickie 90+ minutes every game... isn't going to give him the chance to last 38 games in this League....

 

....and as for the fans comment ..(!) I became a Saints fan 51 years ago - in the Div 3 South...some of the people on here who started supporting Saints.... when they were in L1 just 3 seasons ago.

 

If they are looking to ditch this manager now - after only 8 games....they shouldn't really call themselves " fans " - should they?

 

Re your last sentence, if they go to games and support the team, why shouldn't we call ourselves fans. I want Adkins gone, but I wouldn't do anything but support at games.

[david in sweden]

Re your last sentence, if they go to games and support the team, why shouldn't we call ourselves fans.

I want Adkins gone, but I wouldn't do anything but support at games.[/QUOTE]

 

Aha .but only for 8 games you mean ?.......

 

.....didn't realise you wanted Adkins OUT ?......but if you sack a manager after every 8 games in this league....you'll be in for a lot more heartache than you have just now...

 

......we had that between 2005-2009.

Edited 22 October, 2012 by david in sweden

[Thedelldays]

Of course, but that is stating the obvious. Not sure what the relevance is to whether or not Lambert was present.

 

Just think we may have had a better chance of winning or getting a point with our best player, top scorer, best created of chances, talisman on the pitch

 

We are miles better with lambert on the pitch. And has been proven all season

 

I guess that may be a wrong opinion.

[Dangermouth]

Just think we may have had a better chance of winning or getting a point with our best player, top scorer, best created of chances, talisman on the pitch

 

We are miles better with lambert on the pitch. And has been proven all season

 

I guess that may be a wrong opinion.

 

 

 

Wigan? How did he do then?

 

I agree with the idea of having different players to come in and challenge the oppo defence. Some might be good on the deck, poor in the air and vice versa. If we have different types of players to bring in we should be able to play to our strengths and against their weaknesses. Mind you, we do like to give away penalties as well as OGs and soft goals, so that tends to negate and other plans.

[OldNick]

If Carrol was not playing on sat it would have been a huge sense of relief in our dressing room, the fact RL wasnt playing gave theirs a lift. Apparently we did well in the first half, we dont know for sure but RL may well have taken a chance created. it is also a fact that he was taken off twice in games we were leading on and we lost when we were in control.

[trousers]

@TonyHusbandBBC: Adkins acknowledges Lambert is a "talisman" And when he leaves Lambert out."It's a big call but it's what I'm paid to do." #saintsfc

[Charlie Wayman]

Maybe we have to contend with the fact that scouts watch us and PL teams are cute enough to know how to neutralise the threat of Ricky Lambert so in all probability they come here or go here expecting Ricky to be the main threat so why not surprise then by keeping our powder dry for later. The element of surprise when they find he isn't there can be a major advantage in the first half whilst the oppo's run around trying to re-organise themselves for a different formation to the one they practiced on Friday morning. Then when they are in disarray, bring Ricky on and create havoc again with the originally intended formation by which time the oppo's won't know where they are...

 

It worked a treat at Upton Park last weekend and they were thoroughly demoralised by the time the score was 4-1.

 

What's that? We lost 4-1... well at least we tried, oh! tiddles still better to try and fail then never to have tried at all, eh Nige?

[The9]

Fans from other teams keep asking me why RL is not playing, and how they can't believe NA is not playing him.

 

As 90% of them won't have heard of the rest of the squad before this season it's hardly surprising you're getting lots of "why isn't the only Saints player I've heard of playing" is it ?

 

Lambert's not playing in away matches because we need more workrate and closing down up front. He did neither against Arsenal and we got destroyed (not that I'm blaming him for it but someone needs to stop the ball getting to their midfield too easily as well), he wasn't greatly involved against Everton even with Ramirez in the team, and when he came on against Man City we started conceding goals (as well as scoring them) - the opposite was true at home to Man U but the whole side was knackered by the time he went off.

 

He's playing at home because we're generally more attacking and push more players forward to deliver him the ball in advanced positions without having to have him link play from deep, so he can stay further up the pitch without becoming isolated.

 

Anyone who'd actually watched us play would have seen that. Anyone who thinks we were a "one man team" last season probably won't have grasped that, hence the question.

 

What I'd be asking was if Lambert would have played as often if we'd had Rodriguez and Mayuka last season ?

Edited 26 October, 2012 by The9

[The9]

If Carrol was not playing on sat it would have been a huge sense of relief in our dressing room, the fact RL wasnt playing gave theirs a lift. Apparently we did well in the first half, we dont know for sure but RL may well have taken a chance created. it is also a fact that he was taken off twice in games we were leading on and we lost when we were in control.

 

We absolutely owned Carroll in the first half and West Ham were awful, so whatever "lift" they got from Lambert not starting had absolutely no effect on the pitch.

[The9]

Just think we may have had a better chance of winning or getting a point with our best player, top scorer, best created of chances, talisman on the pitch

 

We are miles better with lambert on the pitch. And has been proven all season

 

I guess that may be a wrong opinion.

 

Going forward I think I agree, until the West Ham game it looked like we knew how to score goals when he was on the pitch in a way we didn't seem to have when he's not there. The question is whether we need additional impetus going forward in a side which scores a lot of goals anyway, when it's conceding them that we need to work on.

 

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had about whether Lambert's ability to hold the ball up front is as useful a defensive tool as Rodriguez or Guly's additional body closing down in midfield.

[Colinjb]

We absolutely owned Carroll in the first half and West Ham were awful, so whatever "lift" they got from Lambert not starting had absolutely no effect on the pitch.

 

Going forward we were by far and away the better team in the first half. Defensive blondness killed all that good work stone dead within 4 minutes of the restart. Rodriguez starting looked to be a good move up until that point..... where everyone was wishing we had a better finisher on the field in the first half, despite the fact that Rodriguez' excellent movement was part of the reason we looked the better side.

 

Quite glad we have the two forwards that can offer something different depending on the opposition.

[Wade Garrett]

As 90% of them won't have heard of the rest of the squad before this season it's hardly surprising you're getting lots of "why isn't the only Saints player I've heard of playing" is it ?

 

Lambert's not playing in away matches because we need more workrate and closing down up front. He did neither against Arsenal and we got destroyed (not that I'm blaming him for it but someone needs to stop the ball getting to their midfield too easily as well), he wasn't greatly involved against Everton even with Ramirez in the team, and when he came on against Man City we started conceding goals (as well as scoring them) - the opposite was true at home to Man U but the whole side was knackered by the time he went off.

 

He's playing at home because we're generally more attacking and push more players forward to deliver him the ball in advanced positions without having to have him link play from deep, so he can stay further up the pitch would becoming isolated.

 

Anyone who'd actually watched us play would have seen that. Anyone who thinks we were a "one man team" last season probably won't have grasped that, hence the question.

 

What I'd be asking was if Lambert would have played as often if we'd had Rodriguez and Mayuka last season ?

 

I respect the right for you to have an opinion, but this is garbage, absolute garbage. He's the most dangerous forward we have by a mile, and his work rate is beyond question. He is everywhere to help the team.

[Thedelldays]

Going forward we were by far and away the better team in the first half. Defensive blondness killed all that good work stone dead within 4 minutes of the restart. Rodriguez starting looked to be a good move up until that point..... where everyone was wishing we had a better finisher on the field in the first half, despite the fact that Rodriguez' excellent movement was part of the reason we looked the better side.

 

Quite glad we have the two forwards that can offer something different depending on the opposition.

all well and good having this supposed excellent movement..how many shots on target has rodriguez got this season....let alone goals..? (league)

[Colinjb]

all well and good having this supposed excellent movement..how many shots on target has rodriguez got this season....let alone goals..? (league)

 

An absolutely far point. Not enough as we would like.

 

Equally though, what impact did Lambert have when he came on on Saturday? Very little. Tactically West Ham were set up to deal with him. We were beaten on the day by the sharper team.

[The9]

I am stunned that people actually think dropping lambert is in any way a good idea

 

J rod looked ok but had zero goal threat.

 

Has he had a shot on target all season?

Also, on lambert... When we go into a game needing to score at least 2 to get a point... When would it be ever a good idea to drop your top scorer and someone who sets ups a fair few clear cut chances???

 

Just cannot believe it

 

He's scored, so I'd be guessing yes.

 

The question is bigger than just picking your top scorer, it's about the balance between attacking and defending generally. Evidently Adkins thinks Guly and Rodriguez have better defensive abilities and are more suited to matches when we won't have the ball as often, it's why they started against Man City. I'd question whether the same could be said of West Ham away, but as it turned out we were excellent in the first half going forward AND defensively, and had we been able to maintain that we'd have won the game.

[Wade Garrett]

An absolutely far point. Not enough as we would like.

 

Equally though, what impact did Lambert have when he came on on Saturday? Very little. Tactically West Ham were set up to deal with him. We were beaten on the day by the sharper team.

 

Colin, are you suggesting we drop our best players if the opposition are tactically aware of him? Not sure I agree with that one.

[Thedelldays]

An absolutely far point. Not enough as we would like.

 

Equally though, what impact did Lambert have when he came on on Saturday? Very little. Tactically West Ham were set up to deal with him. We were beaten on the day by the sharper team.

impact over the season...we are a far better team with lambert in it.....we have not lost any part of the match where he has scored AND been on the pitch....

[Colinjb]

Colin, are you suggesting we drop our best players if the opposition are tactically aware of him? Not sure I agree with that one.

 

I'm suggesting there is no point putting square pegs into round holes.

 

Lambert didn't make an impact when he came on on Saturday, if anything our comparative lack of mobility at centre forward from that point onward hindered us. Rodriguez played a key role in crafting Lallana's goal and was then withdrawn.

 

That game wouldn't have and didn't suit Rickie, I back Adkins' call to start Rodriguez having seen the game unfold, even though I was baffled by the decision at the time.

 

Rickie has a massive role to play for us, but not in every game and i'm glad we have an alternative. If Lambert gets injured we are now not as vulnerable as we were last winter, Jay gives us a plan B/alternative plan A when needed.

[Thedelldays]

I'm suggesting there is no point putting square pegs into round holes.

 

Lambert didn't make an impact when he came on on Saturday, if anything our comparative lack of mobility at centre forward from that point onward hindered us. Rodriguez played a key role in crafting Lallana's goal and was then withdrawn.

 

That game wouldn't have and didn't suit Rickie, I back Adkins' call to start Rodriguez having seen the game unfold, even though I was baffled by the decision at the time.

 

Rickie has a massive role to play for us, but not in every game and i'm glad we have an alternative.

a game against west ham would not suit lambert.......

christ

 

you are right, lambert cant play every single game..but so far this season...we are taking away from the team at the wrong times....results go in some way to back that up..

like I said, we have not lost any part of a game where lambert has scored AND remained on the pitch.....

[Colinjb]

like I said, we have not lost any part of a game where lambert has scored AND remained on the pitch.....

 

No we havn't. Yet he hasn't scored in every game he has played.

 

We all agree he is key for us, but I stand by my view that he will not suitable against every team we play.... especially if we continue to persist with the 4-5-1/4-3-3 wing forwards type formation.

[Thedelldays]

No we havn't. Yet he hasn't scored in every game he has played.

 

We all agree he is key for us, but I stand by my view that he will not suitable against every team we play.... especially if we continue to persist with the 4-5-1/4-3-3 wing forwards type formation.

well, I like to think..(and the stats easily back me up) that we have a far better chance of getting points with lambert on the pitch than off it...and we desperately need points

 

as for not suiting the style...he has been probably our best player all season..so I think he does alright in our team

[The9]

I respect the right for you to have an opinion, but this is garbage, absolute garbage. He's the most dangerous forward we have by a mile, and his work rate is beyond question. He is everywhere to help the team.

 

As the club have access to precisely those kind of distance covered / tackles / interceptions etc stats (as well as the science stuff which is a good indicator of tiredness/susceptibility to injury) I'd be inclined to think those things are behind the decision.

 

I'm not sure where this idea Lambert is "all over the pitch" comes from though. He comes back for corners, and as Davis' goal against City showed, he then can't get forward to join the counter-attack.

 

Again, it's about choosing the right combination of closing down and creating - we're not struggling up front when he doesn't play, so as we're leaking goals, maybe the priority is more defensiveness.

[Thedelldays]

As the club have access to precisely those kind of distance covered / tackles / interceptions etc stats (as well as the science stuff which is a good indicator of tiredness/susceptibility to injury) I'd be inclined to think those things are behind the decision.

 

I'm not sure where this idea Lambert is "all over the pitch" comes from though. He comes back for corners, and as Davis' goal against City showed, he then can't get forward to join the counter-attack.

 

Again, it's about choosing the right combination of closing down and creating - we're not struggling up front when he doesn't play, so as we're leaking goals, maybe the priority is more defensiveness.

 

 

serious question here......you say we are not struggling up front without him...how many goals have we scored in the league when he has not been on the pitch..?

[The9]

I'm suggesting there is no point putting square pegs into round holes.

 

Lambert didn't make an impact when he came on on Saturday, if anything our comparative lack of mobility at centre forward from that point onward hindered us. Rodriguez played a key role in crafting Lallana's goal and was then withdrawn.

 

That game wouldn't have and didn't suit Rickie, I back Adkins' call to start Rodriguez having seen the game unfold, even though I was baffled by the decision at the time.

 

Rickie has a massive role to play for us, but not in every game and i'm glad we have an alternative. If Lambert gets injured we are now not as vulnerable as we were last winter, Jay gives us a plan B/alternative plan A when needed.

 

I pretty much agree with all of that.

[Wade Garrett]

I'm suggesting there is no point putting square pegs into round holes.

 

Lambert didn't make an impact when he came on on Saturday, if anything our comparative lack of mobility at centre forward from that point onward hindered us. Rodriguez played a key role in crafting Lallana's goal and was then withdrawn.

 

That game wouldn't have and didn't suit Rickie, I back Adkins' call to start Rodriguez having seen the game unfold, even though I was baffled by the decision at the time.

 

Rickie has a massive role to play for us, but not in every game and i'm glad we have an alternative. If Lambert gets injured we are now not as vulnerable as we were last winter, Jay gives us a plan B/alternative plan A when needed.

 

I agree about Jay, I think he's going to be a decent player. But Lambert should start every game that he is fit for.

[Thedelldays]

No we havn't. Yet he hasn't scored in every game he has played.

 

We all agree he is key for us, but I stand by my view that he will not suitable against every team we play.... especially if we continue to persist with the 4-5-1/4-3-3 wing forwards type formation.

 

again...serious question..how many league goals have we scored when he has not been on the pitch..? after all, we have to score to get any chance of anything from a game anyway..?

[Colinjb]

again...serious question..how many league goals have we scored when he has not been on the pitch..? after all, we have to score to get any chance of anything from a game anyway..?

 

How many goals did we score with Lambert on the pitch v West Ham, how many without?

 

I do not doubt Lambert's importance, as I said, he is key. But due to the nature of the league we are in he will not be key in every game and it was right he didn't start last Saturday, our defence cost us that game, not our forwards.

[Thedelldays]

right..

 

he was on the pitch for the following goals

 

2 x against city

2x against man u

1 against arsenal

1 against everton

4 x against villa

1 x against fulham

 

 

that leaves 2 goals....against west ham (i think) and the equaliser against fulham

 

he has scored 4....set a couple up and created other clear cut chances....easily, by a mile our best player, best chance of scoring and seems to be suited to the formation better than most...yet we drop him and take him off (before international breaks too)

 

just dont get it..and no matter how much you try and convince me...those stats tell me we have by a mile, a better chance of scoring (and actually getting something) with him on the pitch as time and time again...we seem to do little with him NOT on the pitch...

 

Of course, he cant play every game...hence why he should be expempt from cup games at the mo.....and could have come off with 10 mins to go against villa when we were all over them...then again, he did set up the penalty chance...

 

that is my opinion..and I dont think, whilst we are struggling, that dropping your best player, your top scorer, your talisman and most likely to scare the opposition is going to be a good idea when we are depserate for points

[Wade Garrett]

As the club have access to precisely those kind of distance covered / tackles / interceptions etc stats (as well as the science stuff which is a good indicator of tiredness/susceptibility to injury) I'd be inclined to think those things are behind the decision.

 

I'm not sure where this idea Lambert is "all over the pitch" comes from though. He comes back for corners, and as Davis' goal against City showed, he then can't get forward to join the counter-attack.

 

Again, it's about choosing the right combination of closing down and creating - we're not struggling up front when he doesn't play, so as we're leaking goals, maybe the priority is more defensiveness.

 

Are you sure this isn't just blind faith in Adkins.

 

If prozone stats are that important, then Matty would have been luck to have played 50 games for us!

 

When we have the ball in their box, there is no better player in our side than Ricky. Why don't you think we don't struggle up front when he doesn't play? Have we scored that many without him?

[Colinjb]

right..

 

he was on the pitch for the following goals

 

2 x against city

2x against man u

1 against arsenal

1 against everton

4 x against villa

1 x against fulham

 

 

that leaves 2 goals....against west ham (i think) and the equaliser against fulham

 

he has scored 4....set a couple up and created other clear cut chances....easily, by a mile our best player, best chance of scoring and seems to be suited to the formation better than most...yet we drop him and take him off (before international breaks too)

 

just dont get it..and no matter how much you try and convince me...those stats tell me we have by a mile, a better chance of scoring (and actually getting something) with him on the pitch as time and time again...we seem to do little with him NOT on the pitch...

 

Of course, he cant play every game...hence why he should be expempt from cup games at the mo.....and could have come off with 10 mins to go against villa when we were all over them...then again, he did set up the penalty chance...

 

that is my opinion..and I dont think, whilst we are struggling, that dropping your best player, your top scorer, your talisman and most likely to scare the opposition is going to be a good idea when we are depserate for points

 

I will agree with you that he is our best player.

 

For me, our best player would not have made that type of impact last Saturday though. Our counter attacking play required an absolutely mobile front line to out-fox their organised and experienced defence.

 

Sadly, short of a re-run with Lambert starting up front to test our respective theories we will never know. We shall have to agree to disagree.

[Thedelldays]

and how many shots on target did the mobile, fluid counter attacking team get in the 1st half..?

 

so, he did not make a huge impact when coming on....he wont every game..but I dont think we got a shot on target of note without him either..

like I said....overall we have a better chance of scoring with him on the pitch..you simply cannot deny that

[Colinjb]

and how many shots on target did the mobile, fluid counter attacking team get in the 1st half..?

 

so, he did not make a huge impact when coming on....he wont every game..but I dont think we got a shot on target of note without him either..

like I said....overall we have a better chance of scoring with him on the pitch..you simply cannot deny that

 

How many did we craft with him on the pitch on Saturday?

 

None.

 

As I said, we are not going to agree and we have made our respective points quite clear.

[Window Cleaner]

How many did we craft with him on the pitch on Saturday?

 

None.

 

As I said, we are not going to agree and we have made our respective points quite clear.

 

Crafted him a few that he couldn't convert against Fulham though, 2 quite simple, one a bit harder. Put them all over the top, probably why he got dropped. They were chances that 95% of the real Prem league strikers would take with their hands in their pockets.