Big_John_10 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 This really is getting **** laughable now. Why on Earth would Lambert not start Delph and Gabby (and probably Weimann as well) if they were fully fit and able to play the full 90 minutes? They aren't fully fit and probably wouldn't last 90 minutes. But they quite clearly could have started the game. Maybe he wanted to keep a winning team and reward the players that managed to beat cardiff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 We look incapable of stringing a couple of passes together at times yet still pull out a result from somewhere. Not good for the ol' ticker is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 25, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 25, 2013 Right I'll make this clear. Because our manager, who sees them everyday and knows their status with injury said they started training on Friday and were not fit to start. How is that so confusing? So are you telling me they would have broke down injured if they'd started the game? Like i said what was it about their performance for those 35 minutes that made you think there was no way they could have done that an hour earlier? This is pointless. You're clearly an expert and you know more about the fitness of our players than Lambert and the entire physio team do. Laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 This really is getting **** laughable now. Why on Earth would Lambert not start Delph and Gabby (and probably Weimann as well) if they were fully fit and able to play the full 90 minutes? They aren't fully fit and probably wouldn't last 90 minutes. But they quite clearly could have started the game. Maybe he wanted to keep a winning team and reward the players that managed to beat cardiff? Why start players that you know aren't going to the last the majority of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Right I'll make this clear. Because our manager, who sees them everyday and knows their status with injury said they started training on Friday and were not fit to start. How is that so confusing? So are you telling me they would have broke down injured if they'd started the game? Like i said what was it about their performance for those 35 minutes that made you think there was no way they could have done that an hour earlier? What if they had started, we'd gone 2-0 up then after an hour they were shattered and had to be replaced and then Albion pulled it back to 2-2, would that be better or worse? I'm actually not having a go at the decision. I was just disagreeing that they weren't fit to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) Right I'll make this clear. Because our manager, who sees them everyday and knows their status with injury said they started training on Friday and were not fit to start. How is that so confusing? So are you telling me they would have broke down injured if they'd started the game? Like i said what was it about their performance for those 35 minutes that made you think there was no way they could have done that an hour earlier? This is pointless. You're clearly an expert and you know more about the fitness of our players than Lambert and the entire physio team do. Laughable. Your decision to ignore what you see to just defend everything to do with the club is laughable. Simple question were those players able to play for 35 mins? Next simple question why couldn't they have done that at the start. Please explain what would have happened to them had they started. Edited November 25, 2013 by Big_John_10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 This really is getting **** laughable now. Why on Earth would Lambert not start Delph and Gabby (and probably Weimann as well) if they were fully fit and able to play the full 90 minutes? They aren't fully fit and probably wouldn't last 90 minutes. But they quite clearly could have started the game. Maybe he wanted to keep a winning team and reward the players that managed to beat cardiff? Why start players that you know aren't going to the last the majority of the game? Good question. Like i said, not really disagreeing with the decision but lambert could have started them if he wanted. Stefan seems to think its physically impossible for them to have done what they did an hour earlier because lambert said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 No, I think what Stefan is trying to say is that it clearly would've been the wrong decision to start them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 25, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) If tonight taught some posters on here something then surely it was NOT to post something that will make them look like a complete and utter clearing in the woods shortly afterwards! I know football is an emotional game, especially when it is a derby match, but some of the comments on here earlier are nothing short of embarrassing!! The 90 minutes tonight confirmed a lot. Firstly, we aren't good enough to be without three of our very best players. On that subject, for the people shouting that we should have started the three of them we didn't even manage to get 35 minutes out of them. They were dead on their feet at the end. That's why they didn't start. Does anyone in their right mind honestly think the manager wouldn't want them in his starting line-up and doesn't realise the team's chances of winning a game are far higher with them in it? Is that how ridiculous things have got on here? Why can't the first-half just be down to a bad performance? Why do some need to come on here and pin the blame on the manager? We lost a poor first goal but in fairness to the lad Long it was a terrific goal. The second came from a shocking pass from Bacuna and Baker didn't manage to hold Long up well enough for Vlaar to try and get across and help out. And when you lose two early goals the confidence drains. Every player looks worse as a result. Benteke was frustrated and dropped deeper, thefast enough in realising the two full-backs weren't ball and the midfield three were second to almost every ball. Tonev and Kozak were poor but what player wasn't. And yes, the subs changed the game. Hardly surprising is it?? Hardly rocket science? But the same way the manager didn't deserve the stick he got on here at half-time he doesn't need praised for the comeback. The bottom line is he got almost his best team on the park for the final 35 minutes and it was enough to pull two goals back and turn a certain draw into a fantastic draw. Maybe time for one or two on here to pull their neck in! Well said mate. People need to look back on their comments in the match thread once they've calmed down and realise how petulant they come across. Edited November 25, 2013 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Lambert did a good job with the subs today. I am still unsure about his starting formation. It seemed very solid in the past but for some reason today the WBA just walked through it. Interesting to see how he lines up against Sunderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 If tonight taught some posters on here something then surely it was NOT to post something that will make them look like a complete and utter clearing in the woods shortly afterwards! I know football is an emotional game, especially when it is a derby match, but some of the comments on here earlier are nothing short of embarrassing!! The 90 minutes tonight confirmed a lot. Firstly, we aren't good enough to be without three of our very best players. On that subject, for the people shouting that we should have started the three of them we didn't even manage to get 35 minutes out of them. They were dead on their feet at the end. That's why they didn't start. Does anyone in their right mind honestly think the manager wouldn't want them in his starting line-up and doesn't realise the team's chances of winning a game are far higher with them in it? Is that how ridiculous things have got on here? Why can't the first-half just be down to a bad performance? Why do some need to come on here and pin the blame on the manager? We lost a poor first goal but in fairness to the lad Long it was a terrific goal. The second came from a shocking pass from Bacuna and Baker didn't manage to hold Long up well enough for Vlaar to try and get across and help out. And when you lose two early goals the confidence drains. Every player looks worse as a result. Benteke was frustrated and dropped deeper, thefast enough in realising the two full-backs weren't ball and the midfield three were second to almost every ball. Tonev and Kozak were poor but what player wasn't. And yes, the subs changed the game. Hardly surprising is it?? Hardly rocket science? But the same way the manager didn't deserve the stick he got on here at half-time he doesn't need praised for the comeback. The bottom line is he got almost his best team on the park for the final 35 minutes and it was enough to pull two goals back and turn a certain draw into a fantastic draw. Maybe time for one or two on here to pull their neck in! I've said numerous times, we need more backing to assure we can replace those who make a difference, the problem is having a much weaker second string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 No, I think what Stefan is trying to say is that it clearly would've been the wrong decision to start them. Really? Because he didn't word it that way. So we're in agreement. They were fit to start? And i'd like to once again state i'm not disagreeing with the decision not to start them and am happy with a decent result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 No, I think what Stefan is trying to say is that it clearly would've been the wrong decision to start them. Really? Because he didn't word it that way. So we're in agreement. They were fit to start? And i'd like to once again state i'm not disagreeing with the decision not to start them and am happy with a decent result. I never said they weren't fit enough to start, because technically they were. However, starting them when they clearly weren't fit enough to play the majority of the game would've been a bad move and this has been mine and many other people's entire point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 If tonight taught some posters on here something then surely it was NOT to post something that will make them look like a complete and utter clearing in the woods shortly afterwards! I know football is an emotional game, especially when it is a derby match, but some of the comments on here earlier are nothing short of embarrassing!! The 90 minutes tonight confirmed a lot. Firstly, we aren't good enough to be without three of our very best players. On that subject, for the people shouting that we should have started the three of them we didn't even manage to get 35 minutes out of them. They were dead on their feet at the end. That's why they didn't start. Does anyone in their right mind honestly think the manager wouldn't want them in his starting line-up and doesn't realise the team's chances of winning a game are far higher with them in it? Is that how ridiculous things have got on here? Why can't the first-half just be down to a bad performance? Why do some need to come on here and pin the blame on the manager? We lost a poor first goal but in fairness to the lad Long it was a terrific goal. The second came from a shocking pass from Bacuna and Baker didn't manage to hold Long up well enough for Vlaar to try and get across and help out. And when you lose two early goals the confidence drains. Every player looks worse as a result. Benteke was frustrated and dropped deeper, thefast enough in realising the two full-backs weren't ball and the midfield three were second to almost every ball. Tonev and Kozak were poor but what player wasn't. And yes, the subs changed the game. Hardly surprising is it?? Hardly rocket science? But the same way the manager didn't deserve the stick he got on here at half-time he doesn't need praised for the comeback. The bottom line is he got almost his best team on the park for the final 35 minutes and it was enough to pull two goals back and turn a certain draw into a fantastic draw. Maybe time for one or two on here to pull their neck in! Good post. I wouldn't get to wound up by what people post on here - its probably only the same that was being said on the terraces (or seats) - were 2-0 down after 11 minutes in a local derby. We got a point from a game that we looked dead and buried in. Overall though some of the players in the squad need to develop - or we need to buy better ones - that can hit the ground running. Lambo mostly seems to know what he is doing - but from somewhere he needs better players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted November 25, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) If tonight taught some posters on here something then surely it was NOT to post something that will make them look like a complete and utter clearing in the woods shortly afterwards! I know football is an emotional game, especially when it is a derby match, but some of the comments on here earlier are nothing short of embarrassing!! The 90 minutes tonight confirmed a lot. Firstly, we aren't good enough to be without three of our very best players. On that subject, for the people shouting that we should have started the three of them we didn't even manage to get 35 minutes out of them. They were dead on their feet at the end. That's why they didn't start. Does anyone in their right mind honestly think the manager wouldn't want them in his starting line-up and doesn't realise the team's chances of winning a game are far higher with them in it? Is that how ridiculous things have got on here? Why can't the first-half just be down to a bad performance? Why do some need to come on here and pin the blame on the manager? We lost a poor first goal but in fairness to the lad Long it was a terrific goal. The second came from a shocking pass from Bacuna and Baker didn't manage to hold Long up well enough for Vlaar to try and get across and help out. And when you lose two early goals the confidence drains. Every player looks worse as a result. Benteke was frustrated and dropped deeper, thefast enough in realising the two full-backs weren't ball and the midfield three were second to almost every ball. Tonev and Kozak were poor but what player wasn't. And yes, the subs changed the game. Hardly surprising is it?? Hardly rocket science? But the same way the manager didn't deserve the stick he got on here at half-time he doesn't need praised for the comeback. The bottom line is he got almost his best team on the park for the final 35 minutes and it was enough to pull two goals back and turn a certain draw into a fantastic draw. Maybe time for one or two on here to pull their neck in! For me though it weren't that Lambert didn't start with those 3 players. That was fine and completely understandable. For me it was the formation Lambert chose to play. That was the problem in the first half, and anyone who's watched WBA over the past few years knows that they generally play with 5 in midfield. Their 5 in midfield just completely overran our 4. When WBA had the ball we were pretty much playing with 9 men. Kozak and Benteke just couldn't get involved. It was the exact same as West Ham a couple of weeks ago. Away from home, playing with less midfielders is just criminal when you look at our midfield. We would have been better playing 4-5-1 with Lowton at RB, and Bacuna at RM. Sacrificing either Benteke or Kozak for another midfielder to at least give us a chance. I know that's easy to say in hindsight but I did state it multiple times in the match thread and it really isn't that hard to figure out. It's little things like this which make me question Lambert's tactical ability as a manager as he seems to make very questionable tactical choices a lot of the time. FWIW I think he's done a magnificent job with the budget he's had and blah blah blah.... but he could have put out a better team tonight and kept things tighter til later in the game and then he could have brought on the trio to try nick it. Edited November 25, 2013 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 No, I think what Stefan is trying to say is that it clearly would've been the wrong decision to start them. Really? Because he didn't word it that way. So we're in agreement. They were fit to start? And i'd like to once again state i'm not disagreeing with the decision not to start them and am happy with a decent result. I never said they weren't fit enough to start, because technically they were. However, starting them when they clearly weren't fit enough to play the majority of the game would've been a bad move and this has been mine and many other people's entire point. You should read Stefan's posts before you claim what they mean. He could have started gabby and replaced him with weimman or he could have started andi and delph and replaced them with sylla and gabby. Like I said I've got no real issues with his decision and I'm happy with the result. I just think it's stupid to ignore all logic and dismiss an opinion like Stefan did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingsombrero Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 6 points and 5 places better off than at the same stage last season if I'm not mistaken? Keep on truckin' Lambo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I don't think anybody who 'moaned' before we came back into it was wrong though. We shouldn't have started with that selection and formation, pure and simple. It failed against Cardiff and was always likely to fail today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Got more points from losing positions than any other team in the prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 You should read Stefan's posts before you claim what they mean. He could have started gabby and replaced him with weimman or he could have started andi and delph and replaced them with sylla and gabby. Like I said I've got no real issues with his decision and I'm happy with the result. I just think it's stupid to ignore all logic and dismiss an opinion like Stefan did. Why start a player you know you will have to take off half way into the game? And I already read Stafan's post thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts