Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MancCanary

Is it all down to our style of play?

Recommended Posts

This might be foolish of me but I''m going to attempt to sum us up under Hughton in as few words as possible.. (no, not words like that).

I can completely see why people are unhappy, and equally I can see the positives too. In terms of facts, we are 6 points above the drop zone in 14th, just 2 points off 10th. This would be a fairly good place to end up at the end, there is no doubt of that.

It does look like Hughton is on course to keep us up again, but even if we finish 11th again (a great result for us) there will definitely still be a lot of unhappy fans, despite the result. I have been one of them, but I waver between happy and unhappy. But what I can''t argue with is the end result.

So is it all down to the way Hughton gets us there?Is it just our style of play that''s causing all the unrest? After all we''ve always been a proper footballing club with a history of a positive passing game. So is it perhaps just Hughton''s cautious and calm approach that is getting people''s goat? Because as unhappy as I''ve been this season, and last, I can''t really argue with the results.

If Hughton brings us home even as high as 10th, will the fact that he''s done it in a fairly boring, cautious way mean that we still won''t be happy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that''s a very shrewd post. I''m sure style of play is what it is this week. Other week''s it''s been relegation, giving too much respect to the opposition, only playing one up front, preferring the consrvative Martin before the adventurous Whittaker and so on.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he keeps us up for the second year running then we should, must, be grateful however its achieved imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there were definitely signs in yesterdays game that when we had the ball we were passing crisper and slicker...except when bradders was on the ball. We''ll be so much better when Tettey returns. ..tighter at the back and more assured going forward. Its coming together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I begin to wonder if anyone actually watched the game yesterday, but to me the first half was a good advert for competitive football at its best.  Lots of good passing from both teams, goal chances and desire to win the game.   The second half less so,  but we still had chances and bringing on RVW showed the intent to score.   Our most consistent player - Howson- was out injured, Tettey still not ready, so all in all I thought a point was completely acceptable performance from a manager and team still trying to get its best players fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post. A point you can''t help but return to, so many of our games are "on a knife edge" and determined by very few moments. Villa we lose, Cardiff we draw, Southampton we win. All at home. Similar set up. Still two central midfield players nailed to the half way line, desperate not be be out of shape if we lose the ball,  even as we go forward . The moments are critical. Hit the post (Cardiff), Missed Pen (Villa), Southampton hit post from 12 yeards.

Whilst much of this is due to the quality of the opposition which we do sometimes overlook,   the "style" does have a lot to do with it, and there does seem to be a "what we have we hold" if we aren''t losing on 70 minutes.

If it works, and you have to say over the last 6 matches it largely has, the argument for it is strong. It''s when it doesn''t that it is open to critism .

Personally, I''ll take where we are now, with RVW hopefully coming back (no thanks to Wes Brown) , but expect more of the same against Fulham. Mr Berbatov can change a game on his own.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most is down to results pure and simple. The Hughton Out scene has gone quiet since results have improved.

I still firmly believe Hughton does not get the best out of the squad at his disposal. But I think he should be applauded for the players he has brought in. The squad is extremely strong and he has signed better than Lambert has done at Villa. He should also be applauded for giving up on the 4-5-1 and bringing in 2 strikers, which seems to be getting the best out of Gary Hooper. He is at least showing some level of adaptability, even if he seems to lack the courage to change things in game.

Hughton is more of a dour Moyes/Bruce in style and his teams play, rather than Martinez/Rogers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that a large amount of the disappointment that comes from Hughton''s style of play is due to the English mentality. English fans have always enjoyed very quick football. High pressing, direct attacking, speed in all it''s forms, often to their detriment. Lambert, in many ways, provided the speed of play that many fans wanted. His team regularly tops the charts of long-balls played and is near the bottom of passing accuracy. This indicates a focus on exceedingly quick attacks with little focus on dominating possession or accuracy and more focus on getting the ball and maneuvering it quickly into attacking areas. Lambert''s teams also have a habit of ''bashing'' through the defence. Look at his two main strikers at the moment, both Benteke and Kozak are well over six feet tall, good in the air and very physically strong. This is what many English fans enjoy, they enjoy speedy, direct football that tries to out-muscle rather than out-maneuver or (god forbid) out-think the defence. 
Hughton with his slower, calmer football that is, IMO, heavily rooted in Allen Wade theory is less attractive to the average English fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have just found a quite that sums up Hughton''s style of play nicely. This quote was originally used to describe Allen Wade- style football but I find it is equally applicable to Hughton.
"put pressure on your opponents, force them into tight corners, don''t give the ball away yourselves if you can help it, support the man in possession and provide double cover in defence." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Philip that is just not what we do unless I''m reading your post and quote wrong at least we don''t with any consistency at all.

Put pressure your opponents? Nope! Force them into tight corners? Nope! Don''t give the ball away….? laughingly Nope! Finally the most inaccurate of all ''support the man in possession'' Nope!

I know I''m not the greatest fan of Hoots but I''m chuffed to bits that we''ve picked up some points, I just hope that the signs of a slightly more aggressive approach to our game will be sustained and that this painfully laborious forward play that limits goal scoring chances to our striker(s) is being replaced by a bit more positive ''pass and move'' option.

Having said all that, 3 points against Fulham will do nicely thank you very much :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s not much the style of play. Stoke had an awfull style under pulis but they still managed to dominate some games. Bar Cardiff, I don''t think we''ve dominated a match from start to finish once this season. However we''ve been dominated in an awfull lot. And every game there is always a sustained period of domination by the oppostion, in which we make ourselves look like Sunday league quality. I think this is the most frustrating thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel the team is starting to click, people string to understand each other more and more, most importantly teams around us aren''t beating us, hughton has got us getting results required but if he keeps us up ill be more than happy! Start of the season I said we''d finish 8th and I''m still thinking positive! We aren''t that bad against teams around us it''s the so called big teams!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]I think that a large amount of the disappointment that comes from Hughton''s style of play is due to the English mentality. English fans have always enjoyed very quick football. High pressing, direct attacking, speed in all it''s forms, often to their detriment. Lambert, in many ways, provided the speed of play that many fans wanted. His team regularly tops the charts of long-balls played and is near the bottom of passing accuracy. This indicates a focus on exceedingly quick attacks with little focus on dominating possession or accuracy and more focus on getting the ball and maneuvering it quickly into attacking areas. Lambert''s teams also have a habit of ''bashing'' through the defence. Look at his two main strikers at the moment, both Benteke and Kozak are well over six feet tall, good in the air and very physically strong. This is what many English fans enjoy, they enjoy speedy, direct football that tries to out-muscle rather than out-maneuver or (god forbid) out-think the defence. 
Hughton with his slower, calmer football that is, IMO, heavily rooted in Allen Wade theory is less attractive to the average English fan.
[/quote]The general point about what English fans like to watch is, I think, getting a bit out of date. As for Hughton and Norwich, based on what I saw last season (particularly Arsenal at home) I bought into the idea that Hughton wanted to switch to a more sophisticated, less gung ho, style of football. And all he needed was players this summer to give him the extra class and the tactical flexibility to take that idea forward.Posters who have seen many more games than my one might disagree, but I don''t get the sense there has been that kind of progress. If anything the opposite. Particularly if we are now using what is generally regarded as an outmoded  and very English 4-4-2 system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
The general point about what English fans like to watch is, I think, getting a bit out of date.
[/quote]
I think that English fans are slowly coming around to the idea that speed and directness are not the only aspects of football but that a majority still maintain a similar view to the one I mentioned. Alot of the criticism directed at Hughton has mentioned the speed of our attacks and sometimes a lack of overall directness (or useless sideways and backwards passing, as some like to call it).
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
Posters who have seen many more games than my one might disagree, but I don''t get the sense there has been that kind of progress. If anything the opposite. Particularly if we are now using what is generally regarded as an outmoded  and very English 4-4-2 system.[/quote]
I think it''s harsh to suggest that the current 4-4-2 is old fashioned. It''s not as direct as most English 4-4-2''s and features a focus on maintaining possession when it''s won, rather than lightning-quick transitions towards the oppositions goal. The strikers also focus more on vertical movement (coming deep to collect the ball) rather than staying high up the pitch to compete with the defence or run into the channels which tends to be viewed as what classic English strikers do. There is also less focus on constant crossing and the wide-players are encouraged to move centrally and link up with the strikers, almost like advanced playmakers at times which, again, isn''t a particularly ''English'' thing to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bury Yellow"] Put pressure your opponents? Nope! Force them into tight corners?[/quote]
Norwich don''t press as high as say, Southampton but are still a good pressing side. I think the issue here is what ''pressing'' actually means. The quote was made in the 1980''s, about 12 years after pressing first became common in English football. Pressing back then was all about pressing within the formation, it was about good zonal play. This is what Norwich are good at, retreating into a defensive shape and pressing from there. Hooper said in an interview after Swansea that Norwich ''like to press'' this is what he means, we''re good at pressing from shape and forcing teams either out wide or backwards. It''s not the high-press as espoused by teams like Barcelona or Dortmund, but it is there. Forcing them into tight corners is all about forcing the team backwards or out-wide, forcing them to kick-long when they want to pass-short. Norwich, once again, are pretty good at this. They don''t win the ball as high up the pitch as teams that are very agressive in their passing but are decent at putting the opposition into areas they don''t want to be    
[quote user="Bury Yellow"] Don''t give the ball away….? laughingly Nope![/quote]
A pass success rate of 78% suggest Norwich are reasonably good at keeping the ball when they have it. Easily better than teams like Palace and Villa who can''t even break 75%
[quote user="Bury Yellow"] Finally the most inaccurate of all ''support the man in possession'' Nope!

I[/quote]
Supporting the man in possession simply means offering someone an option. It doesn''t have to be an attacking option, it just means they don''t have to launch an aimless ball forwards or risk losing the ball in a dangerous area. Again, a pass success rate of 78% and the fact we play only 64 long-balls a game suggest the man in possession always has an option, even if said option is a pass-back to one of his defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we were playing a "non-English" style of football well, I don''t think there''d be any problem Fry. The main issue for a lot of people is that we don''t really seem to be doing anything positively. We aren''t pushing high up the pitch and pushing people into corners, we don''t play a slow possession game. To be quite honest, we don''t seem to have much of a plan at all when we go forward - if the likes of Martinez and Rodgers play possession football, and Lambert had the more counter attacking mentality of get the ball back and switch to attack as quick as possible, then what do we do under Hughton? You mention trying to keep possession, but how many times have we dominated possession in a game? In fact, how many times have we had more than 50% of the possession in games?

Now, personally, I''ve got no problem with Hughton. I''m very much worried about results rather than style and I couldn''t really care less how we play as long as we''re picking up points. I think results are always what matter most. If we played Barcelona-esque keep ball, but were doing it badly and losing games, people would criticise Hughton''s tactics. If we were playing Lambert get the ball and attack asap style, but were losing, people would criticise Hughton''s tactics. If we were doing either of those and winning, then everyone would be claiming Hughton was a tactical genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also dispute that passing success rate alone is an indiciation of how well a team keeps the ball. Possession is the only stat you can take in isolation to say how well a team keeps the ball.

You can take passing success rate and number of passes together to get the whole picture, but can''t use that in isolation. If we have only 10% possession, but a 95% pass success rate, we haven''t kept the ball well despite the pass success rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]It''s not as direct as most English 4-4-2''s and features a focus on maintaining possession when it''s won, rather than lightning-quick transitions towards the oppositions goal. The strikers also focus more on vertical movement (coming deep to collect the ball) rather than staying high up the pitch to compete with the defence or run into the channels which tends to be viewed as what classic English strikers do. There is also less focus on constant crossing and the wide-players are encouraged to move centrally and link up with the strikers, almost like advanced playmakers at times which, again, isn''t a particularly ''English'' thing to do. 
[/quote]I''m not sure you have been watching us since we switched to a 4-4-2.  We have been sacrificing possession and launching quick attacks, not slow build up at all.  If anything the main problem this weekend was we didn''t break fast enough, with Snodgrass slowing the play down - apparently we haven''t scored a single counter attack goal with Snoddy in the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Aggy"]If we were playing a "non-English" style of football well, I don''t think there''d be any problem Fry.[/quote]
I never actually said that. I said we were playing a style of football that many English fans don''t find instinctively attractive. In fact the person I compare his style of football to, Allan Wade, was English and helped develop the FA coaching scheme that saw such a huge amount of respected English coaches produced throughout the 70''s. 
[quote user="Aggy"] The main issue for a lot of people is that we don''t really seem to be doing anything positively. We aren''t pushing high up the pitch and pushing people into corners, we don''t play a slow possession game. To be quite honest, we don''t seem to have much of a plan at all when we go forward - if the likes of Martinez and Rodgers play possession football, and Lambert had the more counter attacking mentality of get the ball back and switch to attack as quick as possible, then what do we do under Hughton? [/quote]
Advance up the pitch slowly, play the ball from side-to-side. Try and stretch the defence via overlapping runs from the full-backs. Move in an organised manner meaning that the strikers get closer to goal, the wingers get closer to the penalty area and the central-midfielders can play in more advanced roles. The defence pushes up to play an offside trap.
[quote user="Aggy"]You mention trying to keep possession, but how many times have we dominated possession in a game? In fact, how many times have we had more than 50% of the possession in games?[/quote]
I think you missed the point slightly. What I said was that when we had the ball we tried to keep it. That is to say, we didn''t then try risky, inaccurate passes, we didn''t knock the ball long. We tried to maintain possession for as long as possible. Trying to keep the ball when you have it does not necessarily mean you will dominate possession, as the other team may have the ball for longer periods meaning you rarely have the ball and will therefore have a lower possession rating. Hughton doesn''t particularly care if we dominate possession but he wants us to keep the ball when we have the opportunity to and try not to waste it via unnecessarily risky passing. 
Your point about possession statistics is relevant, I probably used the wrong statistic to show if we kept the ball well. What I should''ve used is turnovers per game or some similarly obscure statistic. It just so happened that pass success rate was easily available and helped give a slight indication as to our ability to not give the ball away.
Finally, your point about Hughton being a genius when he wins and an idiot when he loses is one of the most accurate things I''ve ever read. It is applicable to all managers, who are praised for decisions when winning and damned when losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]
I''m not sure you have been watching us since we switched to a 4-4-2.  We have been sacrificing possession and launching quick attacks, not slow build up at all.  If anything the main problem this weekend was we didn''t break fast enough, with Snodgrass slowing the play down - apparently we haven''t scored a single counter attack goal with Snoddy in the side.
[/quote]
Looking at the games since the Switch to 4-4-2 the possession statistics have been:
West Ham: 47% Norwich. This can be explained by our awful start to the first half when the change in system and personnel meant that we were not performing to our usual standards
Newcastle: 51% Norwich
Crystal Palace: 60%
WBA: 36%. I think this was because we scored early and then sat deep throughout the rest of the game, we allowed them to have possession in order to defend are one goal lead.
Swansea: 37%. TBF, this was Swansea, they usually dominate possession no matter who they come up against.
Sunderland: 41%. 
Average (excluding Liverpool game where we played 4-5-1): 45.3% which is actually slightly higher than the average before the switch to 4-4-2.
  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is I was at the game yesterday. Sunderland were poor really poor yet still we allowed them the majority of possession. Again how many attempts on target against a really really poor team

There were a fair few angry fans leaving the stadium of light yesterday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing I find frustrating is that I often feel that we are not playing anywhere near our full potential. I believe we have a squad of players who with the right management are better than alot of the performances we have seen this season. I think there is much more to come from us performance wise, and it is the manager who has the greatest opportunity to bring that about whether that is through picking the team, making the subs, instilling the right attitude or choosing the tactics. I think we will probably stay up, we seem to be doing just enough, but i would love to come away from more games thinking, wow, what a great team performance - whatever the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Waveney canary"]Yes it is I was at the game yesterday. Sunderland were poor really poor yet still we allowed them the majority of possession. Again how many attempts on target against a really really poor team

There were a fair few angry fans leaving the stadium of light yesterday[/quote]

You can understand the Sunderland fans being frustrated, they''ve improved under Poyet but 9 points from his 10 games in charge is way short of the improvement required to beat the drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
""put pressure on your opponents, force them into tight corners, don''t

give the ball away yourselves if you can help it, support the man in

possession and provide double cover in defence."
"that has to be a wind up as it just about sums up everything City no longer do.The one notable thing is how City always allow the opponents plenty of time on the ball - more so if they are just outside the box - after all most PL forwards need at least three touches before attempting to score ! As to forcing them into tight corners .... dearie me. the zonal sh ite we are playing is one where sticking to rigidly defined areas we force nothing .. with respond after, if we are lucky.Unfortunately that means little movement by our players which means there is never more than one option for a hence the constant need to pas back - us being forced into tight cornersWhich is expressed in this nonsense - a pass success rate of 78% and the fact we play only 64 long-balls a

game suggest the man in possession always has an option, even if said

option is a pass-back to one of his defenders.
That anyone could use this drivel (and inaccuracy) shows what a lack o grasp of the most basic tenets of the game. These figures are meaningless h ite. If we are unable to attack it is better that when we are able to attack, apparently  !  ! ! It needs to be understood that a cross is regarded as a long ball pass ! So with any team a fair percentage of crosses will be cleared by the defenders or caught by the keeper (say half) then you have a long ball accuracy of 50% in that regard. 64 of them it would seem. I wonder who counts, or decides what is and isn''t a long ball.The real problem is whether paying customers (fans) will continue to turn up to games where at best we are simply trying to cling on. Take away the need for a season ticket and see how many might turn up for home games against the likes of Stoke, Palace, Fulham, Cardiff etcIf you argue that the type of football matters little as it is the staying in the PL that is all - then tell me what the difference between a fan and a glory hunter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English premier league fans have been watching a slower , possession based style for several years. I''m not sure that there is an "english mentality" , certainly in the premier league. Chelsea won the league under Mourinho several years ago like this, and the introduction of European coaches have helped change the acceptance of the Charles Hughes style of play.  Even fans of Wigan, Swansea and Southampton will understand how this works.

 

As for pressing, there are two forms. The "making play predictable" pressing , forcing teams into neutral areas, and the Bayern pressing where they look to close (and win the ball) as soon as possible.

 

I had the pleasure of watching the Arsenal Youth coaches for a year at London Colney, and watched them play the latter pressing "defensive" game out of possession. In fact even when the opposition kicked off, the coach would count the number of passes made by the opposition before the defensive team won the ball. This was "high pressing" in  its purest form, and something Southampton do. We dont. We allow the back four and even the midfield of the opposing team to pass the ball , and show them into neutral areas.  

 

Of course what has made this possible is fitness. Barcelona and Bayern at the best exponents of this. Able to seek to win the ball for 90 minutes if a tiring thing to do.

 

Speed in transition is the other thing we do not excell at. But that is another matter altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]
Finally, your point about Hughton being a genius when he wins and an idiot when he loses is one of the most accurate things I''ve ever read. It is applicable to all managers, who are praised for decisions when winning and damned when losing.
[/quote]It is accurate, though not so much for this message board.  You will probably have observed every win or even draw is greeted with a begrudging "we were lucky", though you have probably noted we are never "unlucky" when we lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]. Take away the need for a season ticket and see how many might turn up for home games against the likes of Stoke, Palace, Fulham, Cardiff etcIf you argue that the type of football matters little as it is the staying in the PL that is all - then tell me what the difference between a fan and a glory hunter.

[/quote]Yet they turned up in their thousands to see Exeter City, Yeovil, Brentford etc. People turn up to see their team win games and that is always going to be easier against inferior opposition. There are many who would much prefer to see a promotion fight in the Championship than a hard slog in the Premier where even the poorer teams are not a guaranteed 3 points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Aggy"]If we were playing a "non-English" style of football well, I don''t think there''d be any problem Fry. The main issue for a lot of people is that we don''t really seem to be doing anything positively. We aren''t pushing high up the pitch and pushing people into corners, we don''t play a slow possession game. To be quite honest, we don''t seem to have much of a plan at all when we go forward - if the likes of Martinez and Rodgers play possession football, and Lambert had the more counter attacking mentality of get the ball back and switch to attack as quick as possible, then what do we do under Hughton? You mention trying to keep possession, but how many times have we dominated possession in a game? In fact, how many times have we had more than 50% of the possession in games?

[/quote]This summary by Aggy rings far truer to me than Phillip''s view of how we have played this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]""put pressure on your opponents, force them into tight corners, don''t

give the ball away yourselves if you can help it, support the man in

possession and provide double cover in defence."
"that has to be a wind up as it just about sums up everything City no longer do.[/quote]
I''ve already argued this in a previous post. I feel it pointless to repeat myself.[quote user="City1st"]
The one notable thing is how City always allow the opponents plenty of time on the ball - more so if they are just outside the box - after all most PL forwards need at least three touches before attempting to score ! As to forcing them into tight corners .... dearie me. the zonal sh ite we are playing is one where sticking to rigidly defined areas we force nothing .. with respond after, if we are lucky.[/quote]
This ''zonal s**te'' as you refereed to is the pressing that the above quote is referring to. In a good zonal system, the players quickly retreat into shape. They then identify the man with the ball and the player nearest to him shifts across to put pressure whilst the other players modify their positions accordingly to provide the necessary cover. Forcing someone into a tight corner doesn''t mean running around like crazy and charging into tackles. It means that you force the opponent into decisions they don''t want to make, you are ''forcing'' them into a ''corner'' where they either have to play a risky pass or a long-ball or take too long on the ball. It''s not to be taken literally. 

[quote user="City1st"]Which is expressed in this nonsense - a pass success rate of 78% and the fact we play only 64 long-balls a

game suggest the man in possession always has an option, even if said

option is a pass-back to one of his defenders.
That anyone could use this drivel (and inaccuracy) shows what a lack o grasp of the most basic tenets of the game. [/quote]
All facts and figures come from OPTA. OPTA are a major statistics company that make millions selling their advice to football clubs. Every major football team in Europe pays for access to these statistics (although far more detailed and complex than any stats I can look up). I seriously doubt tthat major European football clubs are going to waste any money on ''drive and inaccuracy''. 
[quote user="City1st"]If we are unable to attack it is better that when we are able to attack, apparently  !  ! ![/quote]
I never actually said that. 
[quote user="City1st"] It needs to be understood that a cross is regarded as a long ball pass ![/quote]
It isn''t actually. A ''cross'' is actually defined as ''an attempted or accurate pass from a wide position to a central attacking area''. A long-ball meanwhile is ''an attempted or accurate pass of 25 yards or more''. So whilst some crosses are long-balls, not all long-balls are crosses.
[quote user="City1st"] So with any team a fair percentage of crosses will be cleared by the defenders or caught by the keeper (say half) then you have a long ball accuracy of 50% in that regard. 64 of them it would seem. I wonder who counts, or decides what is and isn''t a long ball.[/quote]
This shows a clear lack of understanding as to how statistics are obtained and measured. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s simply because Hughton isn''t Lambert.

Lambert provided the most exciting 3 years at Norwich in a long, long time. Hughton simply cannot do this - how can he achieve back to back promotions? Except by getting relegated again, & I don''t think anyone would be very happy with that.

It was exhilarating, but it was never going to last -rather like the super sexy (& very ambitious) girlfriend - & now the mundane slog starts - steady, reliable missus, kids, mortgage, pension ... you know it makes sense.

I firmly believe we would have been lucky to avoid relegation by now under Lambert. His reign was the fantasy, the stuff dreams are made on, this is reality. And reality bites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...