Frank Lampard is bookies favourite

[Mengo 821]

2 minutes ago, Flying Dutchman said:

Hilariously, or not (I can't quite decide), I just read that if Lampard was appointed he would become the first manager in history to have a greater net worth than the owner of the club employing him.

So that's what it's all about. Big Frankie has promised Delia  , interest free loans to get a couple more players in. Makes sense now.🎯👌😁

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

I'm genuinely struggling to see how Lampard is better than Smith ... in any way.

Please help.

'All that glitters is not gold'

[The Bristol Nest 513]

It seems that well known names are more popular than quality coaches. I hope that is a fans view not an organisational view.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Quite, the fact that we're even talking to Lampard as a potential replacement for Daniel shows what a bizarre decision the sacking  was.

Since Farke was basically carrying the can for Webber's disastrous summer recruitment I guess Webber's calculation is that he needs a big name to come in and carry the can for when we get relegated at the end of the season anyway. Webber can then move on to bigger and better things with his reputation intact - in some people's eyes anyway.

 

CM, rest easy, it is not going to be Lampard.

[paddycanary 538]

3 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

No, it's Pen-is von Lesbian if we're going to be correct about it. 😉

Johnson von Baggage Handler

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

1 hour ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

I'm genuinely struggling to see how Lampard is better than Smith ... in any way.

Please help.

'All that glitters is not gold'

Glisters. The Prince of Morocco - Merchants of Venice . 

Happy to help. 
 

[Google Bot 3,256]

Makes me laugh that people knock a young manager as they're rich and successful as a player. 😁

Luckily Webber won't be clouded by such inferiority complexes.

[Indy_Bones 441]

6 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Makes me laugh that people knock a young manager as they're rich and successful as a player. 😁

If you're referring to Lampard, I couldn't give a stuff how rich he is, nor does the quality of players career define their ability as manager and shouldn't be the key point in a potential appointment.

The fact is that he was poor at Derby considering the squad and funds available to him, and arguably just as bad at Chelsea where even with a team of top class players, couldn't get them above 8th, whereas Tuchel have got them top of the league and won the CL...

His history is what would make me 'knock' him as a possible managerial selection, nothing to do with his personal fortune or his playing days!

When you're in a situation like we are as a club, you don't appoint a relatively inexperienced manager to try to pull you out of a difficult position, whilst learning on the job, instead you need someone with relevant experience and the tactical savvy to make the right choices to give you the best chance, and Lampard simply doesn't fit this criteria.

[thebigfeller 200]

14 minutes ago, Indy_Bones said:

The fact is that he was poor at Derby

Nope. Not at all.

And when people write 'the fact is' before proceeding to post their biased, ill-informed (they'd stopped spending when he joined, and his team was heavily dependent on a bunch of kids) opinion, I tend not to read any further.

If they'd had Buendia and Pukki, they'd probably have gone up automatically. If we'd not had Buendia and Pukki, I doubt we'd have finished in the top 6. Funny old game.

Tuchel, meanwhile, has given him plenty of credit for laying foundations there. It was horses for courses. Lampard did the night shift and followed a much needed, very overdue long term plan, giving them a new identity; Tuchel, one of the best managers on the planet, took them on to glory. 

Conclusion? Lampard, who's only been a manager for two-and-a-half seasons, isn't one of the best on the planet. For shame, Frank! 

Give me strength. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by thebigfeller

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Precisely, horses for courses. And Lampard is not the horse for our course.

[thebigfeller 200]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Precisely, horses for courses. And Lampard is not the horse for our course.

Actually, he might well be. The case for him would look a lot like this:

- Young, hungry, up-and-coming (ahem, arguably!), progressive head coach

- His best work has been bringing through and improving young players

- Plays an aggressive pressing style which would suit the new signings we've made

- Would surely pick and revitalise the likes of Cantwell and Gilmour

- Would excite the squad and many of the fans, at least initially

- Knows East Anglia very well

- Is urbane, intelligent and respected throughout football

- Understands the continental way of doing things thanks to all the people he played under

- In both his jobs to date, he did better with a more limited budget (Derby had all but stopped spending when he arrived)

- The new Brexit rules make a British appointment considerably more likely than when Webber first came in

- And the clincher for me is this. His future would depend on him succeeding. If he doesn't, that's it for him as far as PL or even ambitious Championship clubs go; that's it for his long term ambition of managing the national team. But if he succeeded - if he somehow pulled it off - he'd make a right name for himself as a manager in his own right. In that sense, albeit short term, it'd be win/win.

Doesn't mean I think he's the choice. No-one knows on that. It might even be that he asked to speak to Webber, not the other way around. But if he wants his next job to be a PL one, we're probably the only option given the question marks around him after Chelsea. Remarkably, he probably needs us more than we need him in that sense.

And of course, it'd be viewed across football as a significant statement of intent by us. Which would help with recruits, media coverage and so on. Again: I'm not saying it's him. But I'd completely understand the thinking if it is.

If we compared all the above with Knutsen: not only would appointing someone out of the Norwegian league be a massive gamble, but his methods are so demanding that like, say, Klopp's ones, they take time to work. Time which we do not have.

In that sense, I think KK would be a much better fit for us if we were back in the Championship... but why would he join us then? So it's catch-22 in his case, with his (presumed) desire to stay on there til January and finish what he's started only further complicating matters. 

The biggest drawback with Lampard is it'd likely be short term. But given our predicament, that shouldn't be a reason not to go for him. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

CM, rest easy, it is not going to be Lampard.

I hope you are as well-informed as usual Purple - I thought it was a pretty ridiculous idea when the initial betting odds/rumours started but the reports that we've been talking to him seem well -founded and I can't imagine why we would be talking to him at all - surely we aren't trying to persuade him to come out of retirement and play 😂

Anyway fingers crossed, I'm sure you are right 😃

[Indy_Bones 441]

23 minutes ago, thebigfeller said:

If they'd had Buendia and Pukki, they'd probably have gone up automatically. If we'd not had Buendia and Pukki, I doubt we'd have finished in the top 6. Funny old game.

Tuchel, meanwhile, has given him plenty of credit for laying foundations there. It was horses for courses. Lampard did the night shift and followed a much needed, very overdue long term plan, giving them a new identity; Tuchel, one of the best managers on the planet, took them on to glory.

A) They may not have had Buendia and Pukki, but they did have Mount and Wilson, not to mention that they had two strikers who were scoring compared to us with Pukki, and both Waghorn and Marriott's returns were vastly superior to Srbeny's 1 in 15 in the league.

They also didn't have a team of just kids, there was an awful lot of experience sprinkled throughout the team, with the likes of Carson, Keogh, Johnson, Nugent and Huddlestone, as well as other established players like Lawrence and Malone in there. Hell, they even had Ashley Cole ffs!

B) Chelsea still had a side of top class players when Lampard was manager, and Tuchel is hardly likely to come out in the press (whether it was true or not) and say that Lampard had done a poor job is he? It's simply not professional.

I can totally respect that you feel Lampard would be the right choice for us, but revisionism of history isn't going to help the argument (either way), and I personally don't want to risk someone with virtually no experience at the top of the game taking over a club in a very tough position and expecting wonders from them, when there are proven options available instead, that also don't fall into the dinosaur category like Bruce, Warnock etc.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

He's Farke-light. Yes, he did bring younger players along - namely ones he'd already seen at Chelsea when at Derby, then nolens volens at Chelsea under an embargo. We saw what he was really at when he was able to buy players in and still were defensively very fragile.

That's not remotely what we need. We had a superb manager for bringing youth through in Farke, who demonstrated it in the same league as Lampard when he won it with a back four where three of them came out of the youth team. However, we need a manager who's either good at getting a tune out of an attack, or can also combine it with defensive solidity. At best, you can say Lampard could possibly get creative midfielders firing. What he clearly can't do is organise a defence, as Tuchel has demonstrated amply.

He had a very settled squad at Derby, reinforced it with the cream of Chelsea's young talent as well as another proven operator in Harry Wilson and got the same result as Gary Rowett (a proven reasonable Championship level manager) the previous season, namely 6th.

Apart from his contact list and his playing reputation, there's nothing there that even hints at him being at Farke's level, let alone beyond it.

[thebigfeller 200]

Just now, Indy_Bones said:

there are proven options available instead, that also don't fall into the dinosaur category like Bruce, Warnock etc.

Um... who?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I hope you are as well-informed as usual Purple - I thought it was a pretty ridiculous idea when the initial betting odds/rumours started but the reports that we've been talking to him seem well -founded and I can't imagine why we would be talking to him at all - surely we aren't trying to persuade him to come out of retirement and play 😂

Anyway fingers crossed, I'm sure you are right 😃

CM, sadly I have no inside info! It is partly a wish, since Lampard doesn't seem quite right for us. But I noticed Michael Bailey said it looked to him as if the deal had been done with the head coach and the question was now about getting on board the rest of the coaching staff. That suggest someone and their team currently under contract.

But Lampard and his usual top coach, Jody Morris, are both free agents, and available. And if it really was Lampard I think something would already have leaked out through the London-based media.

[Indy_Bones 441]

6 minutes ago, thebigfeller said:

Um... who?

It's not like I haven't mention Favre repeatedly in the past few days...

[thebigfeller 200]

3 minutes ago, Indy_Bones said:

It's not like I haven't mention Favre repeatedly in the past few days...

Fair enough in his case. I'd love it to be him! I just don't know how viable it is.

[FCC 76]

Tuchel praising Lampard was polite and politically expedient to ingratiate himself with the fans.  He was hardly going to describe a former fans favourite as inept.

I expect whoever our next manager is to praise Farke.

I thought we would have someone lined up who is a lot better than Lampard.  

[Robert N. LiM 4,242]

37 minutes ago, thebigfeller said:

Actually, he might well be. The case for him would look a lot like this:

- Young, hungry, up-and-coming (ahem, arguably!), progressive head coach

- His best work has been bringing through and improving young players

- Plays an aggressive pressing style which would suit the new signings we've made

- Would surely pick and revitalise the likes of Cantwell and Gilmour

- Would excite the squad and many of the fans, at least initially

- Knows East Anglia very well

- Is urbane, intelligent and respected throughout football

- Understands the continental way of doing things thanks to all the people he played under

- In both his jobs to date, he did better with a more limited budget (Derby had all but stopped spending when he arrived)

- The new Brexit rules make a British appointment considerably more likely than when Webber first came in

- And the clincher for me is this. His future would depend on him succeeding. If he doesn't, that's it for him as far as PL or even ambitious Championship clubs go; that's it for his long term ambition of managing the national team. But if he succeeded - if he somehow pulled it off - he'd make a right name for himself as a manager in his own right. In that sense, albeit short term, it'd be win/win.

Doesn't mean I think he's the choice. No-one knows on that. It might even be that he asked to speak to Webber, not the other way around. But if he wants his next job to be a PL one, we're probably the only option given the question marks around him after Chelsea. Remarkably, he probably needs us more than we need him in that sense.

And of course, it'd be viewed across football as a significant statement of intent by us. Which would help with recruits, media coverage and so on. Again: I'm not saying it's him. But I'd completely understand the thinking if it is.

If we compared all the above with Knutsen: not only would appointing someone out of the Norwegian league be a massive gamble, but his methods are so demanding that like, say, Klopp's ones, they take time to work. Time which we do not have.

In that sense, I think KK would be a much better fit for us if we were back in the Championship... but why would he join us then? So it's catch-22 in his case, with his (presumed) desire to stay on there til January and finish what he's started only further complicating matters. 

The biggest drawback with Lampard is it'd likely be short term. But given our predicament, that shouldn't be a reason not to go for him. 

I enjoyed this. I thought it had the strong flavour of a man trying to convince himself that Lampard was the right choice...

You do make a good case, and if we do appoint him I shall probably return to this post to try and convince myself, and overcome my pathological anti-Chelsea bias.

My two main doubts, and the two things I'd want an answer to in an interview with Lampard, would be:

How can a coach whose Chelsea team conceded 1.75 goals per game sort out our defensive behaviour?

Norwich City is a big club, hugely ambitious to be successful while doing things the right way, and hugely important in its local community. The last thing we need is a coach who thinks we're lucky to have him. Does Lampard have the necessary humility to realise that he'd also be lucky to have such a great job?

[yellowrider120 761]

46 minutes ago, thebigfeller said:

Actually, he might well be. The case for him would look a lot like this:

- Young, hungry, up-and-coming (ahem, arguably!), progressive head coach

- His best work has been bringing through and improving young players

- Plays an aggressive pressing style which would suit the new signings we've made

- Would surely pick and revitalise the likes of Cantwell and Gilmour

- Would excite the squad and many of the fans, at least initially

- Knows East Anglia very well

- Is urbane, intelligent and respected throughout football

- Understands the continental way of doing things thanks to all the people he played under

- In both his jobs to date, he did better with a more limited budget (Derby had all but stopped spending when he arrived)

- The new Brexit rules make a British appointment considerably more likely than when Webber first came in

- And the clincher for me is this. His future would depend on him succeeding. If he doesn't, that's it for him as far as PL or even ambitious Championship clubs go; that's it for his long term ambition of managing the national team. But if he succeeded - if he somehow pulled it off - he'd make a right name for himself as a manager in his own right. In that sense, albeit short term, it'd be win/win.

Doesn't mean I think he's the choice. No-one knows on that. It might even be that he asked to speak to Webber, not the other way around. But if he wants his next job to be a PL one, we're probably the only option given the question marks around him after Chelsea. Remarkably, he probably needs us more than we need him in that sense.

And of course, it'd be viewed across football as a significant statement of intent by us. Which would help with recruits, media coverage and so on. Again: I'm not saying it's him. But I'd completely understand the thinking if it is.

If we compared all the above with Knutsen: not only would appointing someone out of the Norwegian league be a massive gamble, but his methods are so demanding that like, say, Klopp's ones, they take time to work. Time which we do not have.

In that sense, I think KK would be a much better fit for us if we were back in the Championship... but why would he join us then? So it's catch-22 in his case, with his (presumed) desire to stay on there til January and finish what he's started only further complicating matters. 

The biggest drawback with Lampard is it'd likely be short term. But given our predicament, that shouldn't be a reason not to go for him. 

If it's Lampard then the section above is pivotal. All this stuff about 'failed at Chelsea' is totally and utterly irrelevant! They and us operate at completely different levels and expectations of the footballing pyramid. He would HAVE to make the appointment  at FCR work. No 'ifs', no 'buts', no 'ah yes but' excuses. From that perspective it would probably be a decent appointment. 

KK would be different, a maverick and in some ways a thrilling prospect but the Norwegian League v the PL may as well be on another planet. He (and therefore 'we') could get horribly exposed. 

[Ken Hairy 3,759]

23 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

If it's Lampard then the section above is pivotal. All this stuff about 'failed at Chelsea' is totally and utterly irrelevant! They and us operate at completely different levels and expectations of the footballing pyramid. He would HAVE to make the appointment  at FCR work. No 'ifs', no 'buts', no 'ah yes but' excuses. From that perspective it would probably be a decent appointment. 

KK would be different, a maverick and in some ways a thrilling prospect but the Norwegian League v the PL may as well be on another planet. He (and therefore 'we') could get horribly exposed. 

Agree re Lampard, it's whether he has the skills for a relegation favourite club, we have no evidence either way on that. I also don't see his Derby tenure as a failure when you look at what's happened there since, and remember he didn't get sacked there he got poached. 

He's not my first choice, but miles ahead of Dean 'useless without Grealish and Terry' Smith. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Ken Hairy

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

14 hours ago, NCFCInnit said:

So our future depends upon " a Webber type of manager"? Could this not be the reason we are in the .....

If we replace Farke with another Farke then that will be the most absurd sacking in history given that it's painfully clear now that there was absolutely no problem with squad morale other than absence of wins. 

[Ken Hairy 3,759]

As an extra to my above comment, I don't actually think it's Lampard, I think it'd be announced by now if it was, so it does point to someone in a job currently or logistics taking longer (ie) someone from abroad in a job or not. 

[Google Bot 3,256]

1 hour ago, Indy_Bones said:

If you're referring to Lampard, I couldn't give a stuff how rich he is, nor does the quality of players career define their ability as manager and shouldn't be the key point in a potential appointment.

I said it makes me laugh that people are using his wealth and fame to knock him, if you couldn't read?

Truth is, you or I don't know **** how he'd do here, nor how anyone else would do, and chances are we will appoint an inexperienced manager, the managers who've got out of positions like this aren't of our play style or ethics, unless you want Bruce, Big Sam or Pearson to come in, it has to be a 'hopeful' who's coming through.

If we talk experience, comparatively Farke has achieved next to nothing in football compared to Lampard, but your own biases aren't willing to point out any positivity towards him, not one single positive you're willing to credit him with.  Players gain experience as much as managers, Farke hasn't a clue what it's like to be on the field and play at this level, neither had any of his backroom team.  And we all sit and question our naivety.

Perversely you're calling out the need for experience and Lampard is the one name who's lived and breathed this league for years.  Farke never "got it", and never came close to "getting it" either.  All was fine and dandy when he had top players in Championship, before Buendia people were wanting him out in the first season, 11 games post Buendia and he's out of a job.  

And that's why a man in his know is conducting these interviews in person and won't go in with "Fat Frank" biases, or question that he has more money than Delia, associate him with "That racist" Terry, or be concerned about "Frank Lampard's Norwich".  Such small minded attitudes can stay outside.

[Budapest Canary 152]

On 08/11/2021 at 04:04, Budapest Canary said:

Isn't it short-sighted to limit the search to men? Emma Hayes anyone? It would be an amazing statement! 

I thought I was kidding.... 

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/why-norwich-city-should-consider-woman-as-manager-8475108

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

47 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I said it makes me laugh that people are using his wealth and fame to knock him, if you couldn't read?

Truth is, you or I don't know **** how he'd do here, nor how anyone else would do, and chances are we will appoint an inexperienced manager, the managers who've got out of positions like this aren't of our play style or ethics, unless you want Bruce, Big Sam or Pearson to come in, it has to be a 'hopeful' who's coming through.

If we talk experience, comparatively Farke has achieved next to nothing in football compared to Lampard, but your own biases aren't willing to point out any positivity towards him, not one single positive you're willing to credit him with.  Players gain experience as much as managers, Farke hasn't a clue what it's like to be on the field and play at this level, neither had any of his backroom team.  And we all sit and question our naivety.

Perversely you're calling out the need for experience and Lampard is the one name who's lived and breathed this league for years.  Farke never "got it", and never came close to "getting it" either.  All was fine and dandy when he had top players in Championship, before Buendia people were wanting him out in the first season, 11 games post Buendia and he's out of a job.  

And that's why a man in his know is conducting these interviews in person and won't go in with "Fat Frank" biases, or question that he has more money than Delia, associate him with "That racist" Terry, or be concerned about "Frank Lampard's Norwich".  Such small minded attitudes can stay outside.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise Lampard's record that do not involve wealth and fame, but clearly some people are reading past them.

In purely football management terms, Lampard's not fit to lace Farke's German regional league striker boots. People are badly falling for the fallacy that just because they were top players does not mean they will be top managers. Lampard has years of experience of - playing - at this level. He has one-and-a-half seasons of  - managing - at this level, and he was sacked due to similar weaknesses Farke demonstrated, namely an inability to get a defence organised even though Tuchel has amply made clear that the talent was present, and also that he was increasingly remote/falling out with players to the point where Petr Cech was called in as an intermediary.

Personally, as said somewhere else on here, I think Lampard's getting used as a smokescreen/bargaining chip.

Lampard's Chelsea sacking: The inside story – The Athletic

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

10 hours ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Glisters. The Prince of Morocco - Merchants of Venice . 

Happy to help. 
 

Thank you ... I was channelling Tolkien / Bilbo but appreciate the flag.

[Google Bot 3,256]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

In purely football management terms, Lampard's not fit to lace Farke's German regional league striker boots. People are badly falling for the fallacy that just because they were top players does not mean they will be top managers

And equally people falling down the hole of judging managers with the fewest negatives will always come up favouring the unknowns. 

We failed at this level based on naivety and a grand misunderstanding about what is needed to survive.

If Lamps can raise moral, get us to press and attract new players it's a damn sight better than what we had before.  People acting like there's a rocket science degree needed here, it's really not.  

He has unanimously more experience of this league, and respect of players than anyone else we're looking at.  Haters gonna hate though, if he had Russ Martin's face, got Derby to playoffs, Established the basis of Chelsea winning Champs League, developed Mount - I'm pretty sure there would be plenty gushing over him.

He would be far in advance of 'underdog' Farke and his Tier 6 backroom.  This isn't one man, we're talking a team of him, Jody Morris and whatever other experience he can call on - He has the contacts and many willing him to succeed.  Only a fool would dismiss that.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

And equally people falling down the hole of judging managers with the fewest negatives will always come up favouring the unknowns. 

We failed at this level based on naivety and a grand misunderstanding about what is needed to survive.

If Lamps can raise moral, get us to press and attract new players it's a damn sight better than what we had before.  People acting like there's a rocket science degree needed here, it's really not.  

He has unanimously more experience of this league, and respect of players than anyone else we're looking at.  Haters gonna hate though, if he had Russ Martin's face, got Derby to playoffs, Established the basis of Chelsea winning Champs League, developed Mount - I'm pretty sure there would be plenty gushing over him.

He would be far in advance of 'underdog' Farke and his Tier 6 backroom.  This isn't one man, we're talking a team of him, Jody Morris and whatever other experience he can call on - He has the contacts and many willing him to succeed.  Only a fool would dismiss that.

Derby were in the playoffs the season before under Rowett so there was already a strong basis to build on. And despite all that "experience", contacts, and backroom he still couldn't get a consistent tune out of that Chelsea defence. A set of defenders that Tuchel turned into a formidable unit very quickly and got a Champions League out of them. Playing experience is not remotely the same as managerial experience. Otherwise Pirlo at Juve would have killed Serie A. The Zidane scenario is very rare indeed.

Agreed that there's no rocket science degree needed here though. Why replace a manager who was excellent at developing youth but usually had teams that were vulnerable in defence with a manager with less experience who appears to be fairly good at developing youth and definitely can't organise a defence?

Lampard is a potentially promising young manager, but he has similar flaws to Farke and on a bigger scale. The only thing he's ahead of Farke in is his level of playing experience and his contact list. He might be useful for Villa with their cash. He's not the man for us.