I know but I am thinking in terms of the low profile, 4th choice nature of the appointment that could have undermined his authority a bit.
Was he fourth choice? I read that the board weren't convinced with O'Neill after his interviews (and neither was O'Neill convinced about coming here). So maybe Lambert was lower down the pecking order initially, but not actually fourth choice once the interviews had been done.
He was at least 3rd choice given we thought we'd had Flores and O'Neil said no.
We did look better organised but he made a couple of key selection errors - Crouch and Tymon. This meant Ireland and Bauer had to play 30 minutes too much. Lazy as Choupo was he should have swapped him with Ireland
In any sphere of life, knowing that there are important things you don't know, is an important piece of knowledge and wisdom in itself. Donald Rumsfeld once famously identified this when he called them the known unknowns. For us supporters, I think this is a classic case.
When the same things are happening time and time again like they do under Scholes, you have to question them.
Blindly supporting a board who have made terrible decisions these last years isn't the way forward.
Its not blindly supporting, clearly there are problems but hanging a bloke when you don't have the facts isn't really fair is it.
I wish him well but let's not try to sugar coat this.
I'm not trying to but we all know now wasn't the time to replace hughes. It was too late and the likely candidates had gone followed by our 'ambitious' one saying no
It was late but it still needed doing, the problem comes when you have Peter Coates only wanting managers will PL experience and ignoring other candidates because they haven't got any, it becomes a very small unsuccessful pool that you're fishing in.