This is a very lazy piece of journalism TBH, especially coming from The Athletic. The comparison argument feels like one straight out of a fan forum. Yes, Klopp and Guardiola were given time to build their team at Liverpool and Man City respectively but the one key difference between them and Lampard is that they already had a track record of success before they joined their current club. So Liverpool and Man City knew that while things may not go according to plan to begin with, they knew they will actually turn out to be alright. They knew what they were getting from Klopp and Guardiola. But what track record does Lampard have as a manager before joining us? Only 1 year of managerial experience in the Championship. That's it. We don't have much to fall back on apart from what Lampard is doing right now at the club. We can only judge him based on what we have seen over the last 13-14 months and one can hardly be blamed for questioning him (and no, don't confuse this with asking Lampard to be sacked). A better way to go about arguing whether Lampard will be given time (by Roman) would be to analyze what he has done right, what he has done wrong and what he needs to do to ensure we as a club progress and achieve the objectives we want to achieve. Heck, it might even be good to get some inside info! All the talking is one thing but ultimately, it's all about progression and getting results.