It's Lampard!

[hogesar 9,618]

7 minutes ago, City 101 said:

Just said on Sky neither Lampard or Smith have decided if they want the job yet , further talks today . News from Norwich is it’s a two man race now so Knutsen seems out .

Gives Skybet customers a reason place a few more quid on 1/4 Lampard or 11/4 Smith I guess.

[crab man 164]

[Mark .Y. 351]

9 minutes ago, City 101 said:

Just said on Sky neither Lampard or Smith have decided if they want the job yet , further talks today . News from Norwich is it’s a two man race now so Knutsen seems out .

Or the two men are Lampard and Knutsen or Smith and Knutsen  ??

 

So many differing reports, who knows what is true ??

Edited November 12, 2021 by Mark .Y.

[king canary 7,580]

Some stuff on twitter that it is being delayed as Lampard wants Joe Edwards who is still at Chelsea in his backroom so we have to negotiate that.

[Google Bot 3,258]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I can't accept the last one. It's the name that people are clinging to and ignoring the ability underneath, trying to shape his obvious failings as something they are not.

No, that's what you presume.   Because he is a well known name does not make him any more or less capable than the next man, And that's where you're falling down.

If you read all over these thread people are continually explaining what he specifically brings as a manager, as his backroom and as a man who actively wants to embrace young talent and improve them.

If he takes this job it's with in mind to probably go down with us and then rebuild properly.  Yet because he's a name people like you will be judging him on whether we can survive or not - you just don't get it, you're allowing negative bias to rule your head.

I'll take any of the names listed, I really don't care and will celebrate whoever comes in.  But it's clear what they all offer us, and Lampard at this point in his career is a very good match with our ambitions and young, yet overburdened midfield roster.

That doesn't mean I don't think any of the others are any less or better match, and unlike you I won't let a managers name precede their ability.  However, the lift and experience they can bring to our players should not be discounted.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Google Bot

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

Yet because he's a name people like you will be judging him on whether we can survive or not

Eh? I'm judging him on his record. And it's poor. It doesn't help that he's a ****-poor human to boot but I would take a **** in charge if had a proven track record.

He did a good job with young players at both Derby and Chelsea, that cannot be denied. His results though were at times par for the club and towards the end at Chelsea atrocious (9th, for a team like that, is woeful).

If we wanted a manager with a proven track record at bringing youth through but has a sketchy record with results at this level, why get rid of Farke?

[Sussexyellow 55]

20 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Ah ok. I'd have thought we were more of an attractive proposition than Rangers though, from a footballing kudos/progression, surely?

 

Not necessarily. A title with Rangers would look better on his CV than relegation with Norwich.

Only works if he keeps us up, so we are high risk. 

[BigGrantsTash 70]

15 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I can't accept the last one. It's the name that people are clinging to and ignoring the ability underneath, trying to shape his obvious failings as something they are not. We've had Mount being called a nobody when Lampard signed him (he was Vitesse's player of the season and in the Eredivise Team of the Year), Derby not being playoff contenders (they were in the playoffs twice in the previous three seasons), Harry Wilson being at his best under Lampard (he was better at Hull the season before) and told that the fact Lampard is statistically the WORST manager Chelsea have had under Abramovich is irrelevant.

Now I'm meant to be optimistic about him because Lampard stole a win against Farke following a freak-floodlight episode at Carrow Road, despite the fact that Farke led a team predicted to finish between 9th and 14th to a title and 20 points ahead of a Lampard team predicted to finish 5th-9th?

It's purely because of the name that people are trying desperately to warp his past managerial record into something less than the mediocre journey it has thus far been. If he had spent his playing career in the lower leagues and never played for England, as a manager with his record he would never get a sniff at the job. Webber used to agree with this;

"But in football, everyone thinks, ‘he played, he was a top footballer, let’s put him in charge of 25 players, 30 staff - and he can deal with the media and the board.’ It’s actually a pretty tough job."

As I said in another post, you can forgive football fans getting carried away and bamboozled by a name, but a Sporting Director of a Premier League football club? Nope.

But like-wise it’s the very fact that he is a ‘name’ that makes you and so many others against him

[Google Bot 3,258]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Eh? I'm judging him on his record. And it's poor.

Then show me a better record for a manager in his first 2 seasons.  If it's so poor then that's definable as being below average, so there should be literarily hundreds of examples for you to call on. 

Call him inexperienced, sure.  But poor?, come on - That's the outgoing managers resume - 10% win record this season, 7% without Emi overall? 

You don't think Lampard could improve on that record?  Just having Cantwell and Gilmour firing in this team would be major shot to the arm, and buys him time to build and recruit for next season based on players belief to work with him.

[Google Bot 3,258]

4 minutes ago, Sussexyellow said:

Not necessarily. A title with Rangers would look better on his CV than relegation with Norwich.

It's getting them through to the 'proper' champions league rounds which would be the target there, he'd have to eclipse Gerrard and would go down in folklore if he achieved that.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, BigGrantsTash said:

But like-wise it’s the very fact that he is a ‘name’ that makes you and so many others against him

No it isn't. It's because he has a poor record in management. You can tell it's poor because the people pro his appointment are having to become logical contortionists to make out that getting Derby from 6th to 6th and Chelsea from 3rd to 9th is some mega achievement that signifies what a great coach he is.

I don't give a **** whether our new man has 150 caps or none, whether they've played at the top level for most of their career or barely kicked a ball in a professional environment.

But if Lampard hadn't played at the top level or won any caps and just had his managerial record to bat for him, he wouldn't get near Norwich. Wouldn't even be given odds.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Then show me a better record for a manager in his first 2 seasons.  If it's so poor then that's definable as being below average, so there should be literarily hundreds of examples for you to call on. 

Call him inexperienced, sure.  But poor?, come on - That's the outgoing managers resume - 10% win record this season, 7% without Emi overall? 

You don't think Lampard could improve on that record?  Just having Cantwell and Gilmour firing in this team would be major shot to the arm, and buys him time to build and recruit for next season based on players belief to work with him.

He's been at two clubs and neither improved their position in the league. One he left 6 places lower than when he joined the club despite having an absolute fortune spent on the team in the off-season. The squad that he was sacked from, whilst languishing in 9th place, went on a 10 game winning streak after he'd left. Oh, and that same squad also won the Champions League.

Imagine leading a squad good enough to win the Champions League to 9th in the Premier League. Behind Dean Smith's Aston Villa, I might add.

[Google Bot 3,258]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

He's been at two clubs and neither improved their position in the league. One he left 6 places lower than when he joined the club despite having an absolute fortune spent on the team in the off-season

I clearly have nowhere near the same desire to defend the guy as compared to your personal vendetta against him.  I almost hope he joins to prove people like yourself wrong, but I refuse to allow myself to be dragged into that mindset.

As it is, I'm going to ignore you on here, as I cannot help but reply when I read such stupid biases and it's starting to really frustrate me at which point I'll become insulting to you.  No hard feelings, and I truly hope you continue to go and enjoy the forthcoming seasons.

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

I clearly have nowhere near the same desire to defend the guy as compared to your personal vendetta against him.  I almost hope he joins to prove people like yourself wrong, but I refuse to allow myself to be dragged into that mindset.

As it is, I'm going to ignore you on here, as I cannot help but reply when I read such stupid biases and it's starting to really frustrate me at which point I'll become insulting to you.  No hard feelings, and I truly hope you continue to go and enjoy the forthcoming seasons.

No hard feelings whatsoever. I suspect I'd bow as well. Trying to argue that Lampard is a good appointment is a bit like trying to keep Norwich up with a Webber-assembled squad. I wouldn't want to keep at it either.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

12 hours ago, Alex Moss said:

Cheers for that Crabby, if this had come from a ‘new account’ I’d have taken that info with a pinch of salt but as it’s you then that’s good enough for me 👍

Smith in pole position now? And Knutsen, the most popular choice, cannot be ruled out yet thankfully, simply because he’s not shot it down yet and it sounds like an interview is already arranged, or perhaps has already even taken place?

Apologies Alex, I had let this pass me by. Thank you for the comments.

I have gone back to my friend, to ask what the problems (if any) were. He will ask the question, but did say this was sorted out 2 days ago.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

49 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Apologies Alex, I had let this pass me by. Thank you for the comments.

I have gone back to my friend, to ask what the problems (if any) were. He will ask the question, but did say this was sorted out 2 days ago.

No worries mate! Sorted 2 days ago you say? I’m even more convinced Lampard is going to Rangers now!

[Commonsense 618]

On 11/11/2021 at 14:05, Sjb said:

Not sure how I feel on this. But guess it's a free hit for him. Will be confirmed later/tomorrow morning. 

It’s not😀😀😀

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

On 12/11/2021 at 10:03, canarydan23 said:

Lampard is obviously a step down and Smith has been worse over the last 5 matches than even Farke was, and was much worse in 18/19.

You sure about this? Dean Smith was not Villa manager for the first 13 games. 

I can't be arsed to calculate his win percentage for his portion of the season, but I know they won 10 games in a row at one point for 30/30 points. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You sure about this? Dean Smith was not Villa manager for the first 13 games. 

I can't be arsed to calculate his win percentage for his portion of the season, but I know they won 10 games in a row at one point for 30/30 points. 

Yes, I'm sure. We didn't start well either remember. Pretty sure I checked the other day, we sat 2 points ahead of Villa when Smith was appointed. We finished 18 points ahead. That's a comprehensive drubbing.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Lampard. Stinks the place out

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Lampard. Stinks the place out

 

Avram Grant needs a job!