CambridgeCanary

[quote user="Paul"]To say that he has used his subs well in time is very short sighted. Yes he has used all three but look at the last 2 league games. Spurs - 2-0 down 20 minutes to go and you take off Elmander a forward and put on Tettey a defensive midfielder, when you have Hooper on the bench as well as Wes Villa - Take off Redmond and bring on Pilks. the whole crowd booed because we all could see that Snodgrass was playing sh1t and should have come off. For me thats crap management at the highest level[/quote] For me that''s crap commentary at the highest level. We were losing in midfield so bringing Tettey to build a foundation to try and get the ball forward makes perfect sense. How would Hooper have ever got t he bal Redmond is more arguable but he looked tired and jaded and Pilks did well whilst Snoddy continued to get crosses in

He said that when Lambert arrived he was told to find another club and shunted to the sidelines. Of course he was recalled and the rest is history. Not sour grapes at all. Nor am I saying that Lambert is a villain. His players speak highly of him. He was notorious for focussing only on the first team squad and being uninterested in anything or anyone else. Rightly so because that is what we needed at the time. But, it is apparently how he was and not as Row D sugested

Fox is a good player and did well for us but can get rid of t his myth that his fall from the first team is down to Hughton. Once Howson was fit, he came into the team and Lambert was playing him ahead of Fox for the last half dozen plus games of 2011-12. Lambert realised that we needed more than Fox offered and tried different formations.

You may be right but that doesn''t chime with what players said about Lambert eg the Doc recently. Also, given that Hughton is focused far more on the club than Lambert ever was such as Colney and the Academy, it would be surprising.

Isn''t the semifinal still two legs?

Giving this thread the benefit of the doubt for a moment although I think the Board is a long way from considering Hughton''s future, I wonder if O''Neill has another Prem job in him.  For the last months if not last season at Sunderland he seemed diminished if not broken.  He was listless and looked not like the old him prowling the touchline full of passion but rather he looked like someone who couldn''t care.   He slumped and seemed unmoved by his team.   He is in his early sixties.  As you get older, it gets harder to build yourself up again for new challenges.   I seriously worry that he has lost his spark and couldn''t survive long at a new club.

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Joanna Grey"]Herman wrote the following post at 25/09/2013 6:56 AM: "Holloway,like Warnock,are fantastic championship managers. That is their limit." That''s why the League One level members on here would like him. As long as it''s "entertaining", eh?[/quote]So Hughton''s drab, defensive morale-sapping, no-scoring, insipid style will keep us up ?  If I thought it would I might accept it, but it will not.  [/quote]   I knew you wouldn''t stay away when there was carrion to be picked over.   Given your record on predictions and evaluations of players, I take your comment as a strong indicator that we will be fine this season [/quote]Good luck with your defensive, fearful Hughton. I want to see an attacking, confident Hughton, just as I''ve always wanted.  You are now in the minority rather than myself so have fun defending your increasingly dodgy position. [/quote]   You''ve never wanted any form of Hughton

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Joanna Grey"]Herman wrote the following post at 25/09/2013 6:56 AM: "Holloway,like Warnock,are fantastic championship managers. That is their limit." That''s why the League One level members on here would like him. As long as it''s "entertaining", eh?[/quote]So Hughton''s drab, defensive morale-sapping, no-scoring, insipid style will keep us up ?  If I thought it would I might accept it, but it will not.  [/quote]   I knew you wouldn''t stay away when there was carrion to be picked over.   Given your record on predictions and evaluations of players, I take your comment as a strong indicator that we will be fine this season

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]I''m sure Neil Adams (and the others who have coached and developed our young players) should take much of the credit. However, if you took notice of these things you would see how often everybody involved in the Academy set up (including the young players) praise Chris Hughton for how much time and interest he pays them. (Totally unlike our previous manager who took hardly any notice of the Academy).[/quote] Bang in in every point. Hughton has always been a manager for the club not the first team

Eight changes for Watford. And we were missing Bassong, Ruddy, Van Wolfswinkel, Howson, Pilkington, Turner and Snodgrass. So what???

Always the way. There are some on here who can never give City the credit. If we concede it''s the fault of our players, if we score it''s the fault of the other side. Never good play by our lads. It is pathetic. Criticise by all means but be consistent. If we do something right then praise as you attack when things go wrong

[quote user="Making Plans"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]Dead right, Slim - Lambo, the man who could do no wrong, would be lauded for tonight''s result; in CH''s case it is just used as another nail in his coffin. Go figure.[/quote]Thing is Lambert did it frequently. Hughton has done it once.[/quote] Come on this is getting silly. Everton last season, Arsenal etc. Criticise by all means but don''t airbrush history. We''ve had good games under Hughton just as we had rubbish and no shows under Lambert

Purple, don''t be obtuse.  You''re better than that.  You know full well that my point is that the same posters frothing about the penalty are those who do proclaim the myth.  They are hypocrites who want to attack Hughton in every situation.  My posts are addressed to them not the posters like you who have the integrity to look at things on their merits.   Are you saying that there are not many posters complaining that the players are shackled by Hughton''s tactics?   The fact that the myth even exists is demonstrative of the attitude of some posters.  "Hound the sod out" is well underway on here at least.

This Board is full of months of complaints that the players are too shackled by Hughton.  Indeed, there is a convenient and popular myth that we beat WBA because the players disobeyed orders.   I must have missed all the demands for the squad to be disciplined after that game.   So, beating West Brom by disobeying Hughton = Good. Snodgrass missing penalty by disobeying Hughton = Bad.   However you dress this up, it is about outcomes and finding the convenient stick to attack Hughton 

Fans are quick to criticise when players hide and don''t take responsibility yet Snodgrass is crucified for having the desire and confidence to demand the penalty.  If he had scored none of this nonsense would be going on.   I agree he is going through a difficult patch.  But, he has been humiliated before the millions who watch the Premier League by pushing himself forward and messing up.   I doubt if there is anything useful anyone else can say to him.  He knows he made a complete pratt of himself.   Why are some posters so obsessed with this incident?  I''ve said elsewhere that we could have easily ended up with a situation where Snodgrass was overruled and Ricky missed.  Then, the same people persecuting Snodgrass and especially Hughton for not being assertive would be criticising Ricky and Hughton for being too regimented and not being flexible enough to allow the form player who wants the penalty to have a go.   As ever, Hughton is damned whatever he did because some posters want to damn him whatever he does.

And yet, what if someone had put down the law, Ricky took the penalty and missed? This board would be full of outrage "Go with the man who is confident and who wants it. Go with the man who''s feeling lucky". It is all about outcomes and all this cod blustering about Snodgrass is ridiculous. He had the guts to go for it and would be a hero if it had gone in. He has to live with the embarrassment of failure but he is not a war criminal after all.

Don''t you have to factor in the mental state of DiCanio? He attacked players he signed which is very dangerous. We all knew this would quickly be a huge success or a car crash. The parallels with us are pretty thin really.

[quote user="killiecanary"]Thank God! By a country mile the most intelligent and reasoned post I''ve read all weekend. Parma please post more often![/quote] Ditto. The rational element is on the move at last.

I really couldn''t be bothered to answer some of the nonsense on here so thank you Killie for putting the other side and saying what I didn''t.

[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]Alright then, most humiliating and infuritating performance since Colchester if we have to be pedantic !Point im trying to make was yesterday we saw inept management and crap on field commitment and attitude from our players ! Something I thought we had swept under the carpet years ago ![/quote] What! A game we should have won was worse than Sunderland and Blackburn away under Lambert, worse than Fulham last season or both Liverpool home games. If you are serious, you have some very strange values. The penalty was a mess but these things happen. As for the other incident, Pilks had a paddy because Garrido didn''t pass to him. It happens all the time. Mel Machin and Ted MacDougall had a fight in a friendly for the same reason. There are plenty of remains to be unhappy at the moment but this kind of hyperbolic looking for things to moan about is just silly.

Bit of retrospective revaluation going on here. Last season''s game was very even and won by some brilliance by Agbonlahor. Could easily have gone the other way. Hardly the one sided walkover against a dour team that the OP claims. Credit to Agbonlahor. Great performance. Nothing special from the other 10 though.

There is a reason that Trevor Hockey remains a legend to anyone who saw him.   He is unique.  He is remembered warmly and with genuine affection despite playing only 13 games 40 years ago.   When you look at being a legend after 13 games is ridiculous.   But it was earnt.  Trevor Hockey is the hardest, scariest, most fearsome footballer I have ever seen   Or will see because Trevor could not play today.   But the thing that makes him special is his integrity.  It was all in the open.  No Van Persie or Fellaini like elbows off the ball.  No whinging to the ref.  He went in like a man, clear and open and took whatever he got.   Then he got up and did it again!   Trevor played football like a rugby player.  You gave it hard, got it hard and got on with the game.

There was an excellent piece in the Times on this on Tuesday I think.   This is actually the biggest scandal of the moment and I can''t believe it is not getting more attention. At a time when we need referees to be aloof and independent, to be able to see the incident but not the team or the player, it is outrageous that Halsey should admit and even be proud of his relationships with top managers.   His apparent need to ingratiate himself with Fergie and others is completely unprofessional.    We wonder why we get bad decisions and why referees favour the big teams (Arsenal last season anyone?) and here is the answer.  How many times do we say at the end of a game that the referee could not have been more biased if he had been paid?   In Halsey''s case and others (the unnamed referee mentioned in the Times who wants and gets signed shirts) it seems that there is at least moral corruption.

I''m surprised no one has mentioned the 3-2 win against Derby in our Championship season. Good match that ended with most thrilling denouement. Also, 3-2 against QPR in 1976. Best game I''ve seen at Carrow Road.

To follow a sport you have to be engaged by it. It has to mean something and to engage you in some way. That will include but is not limited to entertaining you. Sport engages or it is nothing. Boxing disgusts my father but fascinates me. I love rugby union but find the allegedly more entertaining league to be superficial. It is whatever graps us as individuals. Football tends to be team based and you are more likely to get divorced than change your team. What people get out if following a particular team is unique to them. It may begin with entertainment but continues even if the entertainment does not. The paradox is that sport is ultimately about contest and competition. So winning is the goal. Not entertaining. If you want entertaining without real competition then watch wrestling. Look how fans ignore friendlies. Sport is different. Another paradox is that truly great sports performers are so good and so focused on winning that they are often not attractive to watch or entertaining. Schumacher, Navratilova and Tiger Woods were exemplary champions but were so good and so ruthless that they rarely entertain the neutral. I wonder if the entertainment in sport comes from fallibility. From the heroic rise from loser to winner. Even brilliance mixed with fallibility is loved eg Seve. We find entertainment in football. As long as it is a sport with contest and victory at its core, it can never be just or even primarily entertainment.