Lampard.

What surprises me a bit with Lampard is the reports out of Chelsea that he struggled to communicate with some players and alienated others. This is a man who comes across well I think and was a genuinely World Class player. Surely, he would know the importance of communication and leadership.

Perhaps he hasn't quite got the balance right between being a coach and being the Manager. The comparison with Gerrard is a good one, as by all accounts Gerrard steps back from coaching quite a bit, but sets the whole tone for the environment.
 
The one thing different this time with Frank Lampard is that he hasn't got Jody Morris as his assistant.

I think it goes to show where the management and coaching skills actually are
 
At Derby, he was appointed in summer 2018. The club had a net zero transfer spend in the only season he was there. The season prior they had made an £8m surplus on transfers and a £1m surplus the year prior. Derby's £30m spree was in 2015 under Paul Clement and many of his signings had gone before Lampard arrived.
Lampard attracted Mason Mount and Harry Wilson to the club. No Lampard, no chance those players would have gone. Those two players were everything at Derby, their only real quality.
Norwich and Sheff Utd were comfortably promoted. Leeds, West Brom and Villa were the other sides in the play offs.
Norwich wage bill was £54m, Sheff Utd £41m, Leeds was £46m, West Brom £47m and Aston Villa is so high it is omitted from accounts. Middlesbrough was £40m. Derby's wage bill had been £40m the season before, but there are no published accounts since then in public domain. Derby did not have a wage advantage over the other clubs in the promotion race.
Norwich lost £39m, Sheff Utd lost £21m, Leeds lost £21m, West Brom lost £7m and Aston Villa a jaw dropping £112m. Middlesbrough had a surplus of £2m.
FFP is a completely different thing as we know with lots of puts and takes, but it is unmistakably clear that Aston Villa were in severe breach the season they beat Derby in the play off final to go up.

The facts are that Lampard in his first managerial role did very well to get Derby into the play offs and beat Leeds in the two legged play off. They lost narrowly at Wembley to Villa, but at least had a go.

He was offered Chelsea before his time, but understandably took it on. A transfer embargo prevented him spending, but he brought through many of the young players, qualifying for Champions League and making the FA Cup Final. That summer they signed Ziyech, Havertz, Chilwell, Mendy and Werner. Not too shabby. He strongly wanted Rice and was blocked. Tuchel did win the Champions League but also finished no higher than Lampard had done. Lampard did not fail at Chelsea at all.

So he is bruised, out of football for a year and the Everton job comes up. It is not a bad job and on the face of it the squad should be good enough to stay up, there is a new ground to look forward to and owners who splash the cash. It is easy to see why he took it in his position. It is a very difficult job in reality and they may go down. If they do they would be wise to stick with Lampard IMHO.

Gerrard prepared well and took the Ibrox job. He did pretty well, but joined astutely at an opportune time against a fading Celtic. He is not really missed at Ibrox by the fans.
He has gone to Villa, similar size club to Everton, who have spent £350m since being promoted, £117m by Gerrard himself, plus God Knows how much on Coutinho wages. Villa are in the same position 11th as last season, on fewer points per match and will not get to last season's points total of 55. I'm not at all sure why he is seen to have done well.

Everyone has an angle. I preferred Lampard as a player and think him by far the more impressive man. Intelligent, articulate, charismatic, ultra well connected.
I get that others would favour Gerrard, an excellent player and an edgier figure.
It will be interesting to see whose career is more successful. Obviously Frank's playing honours dwarf Gerrard's, but in management it counts for very little.
 
TeaCider said:
Not sure I agree with you here.

Gerrard had a year of managing Liverpool's U18s and U19s and then was offered the biggest/2nd biggest job in Scotland as his first senior position.

He then jumped to the first decent sized Premier League club that was in for him, and left Rangers in the lurch mid-season.

Not sure how that's a hard road, he specifically turned down Norwich because of their situation.
Gerrard only got the jobs in the first place because of his name, so that's the exact same privilege and he hadn't proved he could manage when he was offered his first job either.

Lampard under-achieved at Derby, but taking over a perennial Championship club isn't a path of privilege, and you can't try and claim that Rooney is doing it the "right way" when it's the same path Lampard took.

Rooney turned down the Everton job before they offered it to Lampard because of the situation both clubs are currently in and the fact it was mid-season.

Lampard was offered the Chelsea job before the season had started, when they were expected to be under severe restrictions.

If Gerrard had been offered the Liverpool job, he'd have taken it in a heartbeat, regardless of his experience.
The difference is he wasn't offered the job.
Click to expand...

I think on the Rooney point it’s a no lose situation for him. If he keeps them up he’s a hero, if he doesn’t they went down battling factors beyond his control. Either way he’ll come out of it well.

Also agree with the Lampard/Gerrard comparisons being weird. I think that’s part of the reason the fine job Vieira’s doing has been flying under the radar too.
 
indeedido said:
At Derby, he was appointed in summer 2018. The club had a net zero transfer spend in the only season he was there. The season prior they had made an £8m surplus on transfers and a £1m surplus the year prior. Derby's £30m spree was in 2015 under Paul Clement and many of his signings had gone before Lampard arrived.
Lampard attracted Mason Mount and Harry Wilson to the club. No Lampard, no chance those players would have gone. Those two players were everything at Derby, their only real quality.
Norwich and Sheff Utd were comfortably promoted. Leeds, West Brom and Villa were the other sides in the play offs.
Norwich wage bill was £54m, Sheff Utd £41m, Leeds was £46m, West Brom £47m and Aston Villa is so high it is omitted from accounts. Middlesbrough was £40m. Derby's wage bill had been £40m the season before, but there are no published accounts since then in public domain. Derby did not have a wage advantage over the other clubs in the promotion race.
Norwich lost £39m, Sheff Utd lost £21m, Leeds lost £21m, West Brom lost £7m and Aston Villa a jaw dropping £112m. Middlesbrough had a surplus of £2m.
FFP is a completely different thing as we know with lots of puts and takes, but it is unmistakably clear that Aston Villa were in severe breach the season they beat Derby in the play off final to go up.

The facts are that Lampard in his first managerial role did very well to get Derby into the play offs and beat Leeds in the two legged play off. They lost narrowly at Wembley to Villa, but at least had a go.

He was offered Chelsea before his time, but understandably took it on. A transfer embargo prevented him spending, but he brought through many of the young players, qualifying for Champions League and making the FA Cup Final. That summer they signed Ziyech, Havertz, Chilwell, Mendy and Werner. Not too shabby. He strongly wanted Rice and was blocked. Tuchel did win the Champions League but also finished no higher than Lampard had done. Lampard did not fail at Chelsea at all.

So he is bruised, out of football for a year and the Everton job comes up. It is not a bad job and on the face of it the squad should be good enough to stay up, there is a new ground to look forward to and owners who splash the cash. It is easy to see why he took it in his position. It is a very difficult job in reality and they may go down. If they do they would be wise to stick with Lampard IMHO.

Gerrard prepared well and took the Ibrox job. He did pretty well, but joined astutely at an opportune time against a fading Celtic. He is not really missed at Ibrox by the fans.
He has gone to Villa, similar size club to Everton, who have spent £350m since being promoted, £117m by Gerrard himself, plus God Knows how much on Coutinho wages. Villa are in the same position 11th as last season, on fewer points per match and will not get to last season's points total of 55. I'm not at all sure why he is seen to have done well.

Everyone has an angle. I preferred Lampard as a player and think him by far the more impressive man. Intelligent, articulate, charismatic, ultra well connected.
I get that others would favour Gerrard, an excellent player and an edgier figure.
It will be interesting to see whose career is more successful. Obviously Frank's playing honours dwarf Gerrard's, but in management it counts for very little.
Click to expand...
Super interesting perspective and post. Quite the opposite of what I think but very well put and persuasively argued. That is very interesting about the Champo wages bills.

It’s true, everyone has an angle, and now I’m wondering if it’s to do with which one you liked best as a player, because they’re quite polarising.

In my opinion Lampard was a very good attacking midfielder who had a fantastic goal record, albeit a lot of deflections and he took a crazy amount of shots. I’m not sure there’s an efficiency % but he’d shoot from anywhere, anytime, and ended up with 15 goals a season because of it - an absolutely superb return. He’s also a smart cookie and was brilliant in that Mourinho team, a very good midfielder.

Gerrard I think is my favourite non-Boro player who I’ve ever seen. Bryan Robson reincarnated. Loads of edge, which I loved, and a proper Roy of the Rovers, box to box leader who could do everything. For me he’s the best all-round midfielder I’ve ever seen. Did astonishing things in the biggest games, again and again, on his own, with a team of clowns around him. I’d pick him in my world XI very early every time and as a person I connect with him way more than Frank - edge, drive, working class northerner. Most people in retrospect would take Scholesy as the guy to build that golden generation team around, but I’d go Gerrard and Rooney every time.

Fair point about Vieira as well. He’s been groomed for management and always talked about as having all the skills for it, but Palace were facing a right mess when he took over - loads of important players out of contract - and they’ve been excellent, surprisingly good rebuild.

It will be interesting to see how their managerial careers pan out! Klopp’s going to be a hard act to follow for Gerrard, if he takes it when it’s available, but am yet to see Lampard really make his mark on a team as a manager.
 
jonny_greenings_sock said:
Super interesting perspective and post. Quite the opposite of what I think but very well put and persuasively argued. That is very interesting about the Champo wages bills.

It’s true, everyone has an angle, and now I’m wondering if it’s to do with which one you liked best as a player, because they’re quite polarising.

In my opinion Lampard was a very good attacking midfielder who had a fantastic goal record, albeit a lot of deflections and he took a crazy amount of shots. I’m not sure there’s an efficiency % but he’d shoot from anywhere, anytime, and ended up with 15 goals a season because of it - an absolutely superb return. He’s also a smart cookie and was brilliant in that Mourinho team, a very good midfielder.

Gerrard I think is my favourite non-Boro player who I’ve ever seen. Bryan Robson reincarnated. Loads of edge, which I loved, and a proper Roy of the Rovers, box to box leader who could do everything. For me he’s the best all-round midfielder I’ve ever seen. Did astonishing things in the biggest games, again and again, on his own, with a team of clowns around him. I’d pick him in my world XI very early every time and as a person I connect with him way more than Frank - edge, drive, working class northerner. Most people in retrospect would take Scholesy as the guy to build that golden generation team around, but I’d go Gerrard and Rooney every time.

Fair point about Vieira as well. He’s been groomed for management and always talked about as having all the skills for it, but Palace were facing a right mess when he took over - loads of important players out of contract - and they’ve been excellent, surprisingly good rebuild.

It will be interesting to see how their managerial careers pan out! Klopp’s going to be a hard act to follow for Gerrard, if he takes it when it’s available, but am yet to see Lampard really make his mark on a team as a manager.
Click to expand...
We do disagree, but nice to do so without any insulting or fuss (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top