Lamberts Tactics Last Night

[The Great Wall Of Tettey 0]

I, along with nearly every single city fan rate paul lambert highly as a manager, but last night at orient i feel he got it wrong.

we played 4-4-2 if im correct at home to mk dons, didnt even play that badly, and got conned out of a win. then we turn up at orient and from what it looked like oli johnson was playing in the ''hoolahan'' role, which was clearly not working, with more suitable players able to play in there proper positions in a 4-4-2 formation, an out of position oli johnson was not the answer.

secondly the tactics of get the ball down and pass it seem to be lacking. admitidly the pitch was not the best, but lumping it up to chris martin all day was not the answer. I didnt think the centre backs had that bad of game, although they could have been blamed for the goals last night, i cant help but be convinced that forster could have came to claim the ball for the second.

I may be wrong with my opinion, but fire away....

[morty 0]

I only have the radio opinion to base this on.I see what Lambert was trying to do, the diamond is a good solid formation if everyone plays their part, and putting Oli at the tip isn''t all that wacky really, he''s good with the ball at his feet and reasonably athletic, minus points though would be his ability to tackle.I''m still not entirely convinced that 4-4-2 works for us right now and I think that without Holt last night it would have been risky.So whilst I won''t say Lambert got it entirely right, I don''t think he was left with many options really.What beat us was that Orient wanted the points more than we did, the City players on teh pitch last night had more than enough quality to win, just not the desire, or perhaps, bottle.

[Queen B 0]

Plus I seem to remember several posts on here from people suggesting playing Oli in the Hoolahan role as if it was the answer to all our problems.

[morty 0]

When Holt was out before did we ever play a 4-5-1 with Chris Martin on his own up front?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Queen B"]Plus I seem to remember several posts on here from people suggesting playing Oli in the Hoolahan role as if it was the answer to all our problems.[/quote]I have to admit, given our options it also seemed obvious to me.But I''m not a football manager lol, just another fan with an opinion.

[ZLF 276]

for mk dons the 442 did not work - the midfield were second in tackles and loose balls all game,  things improved marginally going 433 but only when martin took the hole role.

We did create chances against mkdons with both formations (mainly through russell martins crosses) but holt finished woefully.  We were not conned out of two points on sat - the midfield again failed to turn up and we got the point the team performance deserved

[Queen B 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Queen B"]Plus I seem to remember several posts on here from people suggesting playing Oli in the Hoolahan role as if it was the answer to all our problems.[/quote]I have to admit, given our options it also seemed obvious to me.But I''m not a football manager lol, just another fan with an opinion.[/quote]All I meant by it was Lambert wasn''t the only one who thought it would work; it did seem kind of obvious.

[K Lo 233]

[quote user="Oli Oli Oli Oli"]

I, along with nearly every single city fan rate paul lambert highly as a manager, but last night at orient i feel he got it wrong.

we played 4-4-2 if im correct at home to mk dons, didnt even play that badly, and got conned out of a win. then we turn up at orient and from what it looked like oli johnson was playing in the ''hoolahan'' role, which was clearly not working, with more suitable players able to play in there proper positions in a 4-4-2 formation, an out of position oli johnson was not the answer.

secondly the tactics of get the ball down and pass it seem to be lacking. admitidly the pitch was not the best, but lumping it up to chris martin all day was not the answer. I didnt think the centre backs had that bad of game, although they could have been blamed for the goals last night, i cant help but be convinced that forster could have came to claim the ball for the second.

I may be wrong with my opinion, but fire away....

[/quote]I was at the MK match. We had some very good opportunities in the first part of the match but when MK had ridden that, they grew in confidence and our midfield looked non-existent for pretty much the rest of the match. It was only towards the end of the match where we were throwing everything at the back and they had almost every player on 1 yellow that we thought we maty just sneak a win. We did play a 4-4-2 at first but then switched to a diamond when the subs came on.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Queen B"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Queen B"]Plus I seem to remember several posts on here from people suggesting playing Oli in the Hoolahan role as if it was the answer to all our problems.[/quote]I have to admit, given our options it also seemed obvious to me.But I''m not a football manager lol, just another fan with an opinion.[/quote]All I meant by it was Lambert wasn''t the only one who thought it would work; it did seem kind of obvious.[/quote]Yep, I agree.But now we know at least lol.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Queen B"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Queen B"]Plus I seem to remember several posts on here from people suggesting playing Oli in the Hoolahan role as if it was the answer to all our problems.[/quote]I have to admit, given our options it also seemed obvious to me.But I''m not a football manager lol, just another fan with an opinion.[/quote]All I meant by it was Lambert wasn''t the only one who thought it would work; it did seem kind of obvious.[/quote]Obvious to anybody who was not at Walsall away maybe.  Anybody that was there - especially Lambert should have really known better.