Empty Mirror

The system could be fine. The players could be fine. But these players are not fine for this system. We have spent our transfer budget on two modern strikers who like to make runs in behind the last defender and who thrive on balls slid in behind the defenders. Who need a creative midfielder to play these balls. It doesn''t have to be Wes, but someone like Wes, an old fashioned number 10 if you like. We''ve played one such ball all season (Fer to Hooper against Watford). However, we play three combative central midfielders. And rely on the wings for creativity. Which means a succession of crosses. Mostly delivered late because two of our three fit wingers lack pace, and because they are played on the "wrong" side and have to cut back before crossing. Which could still be fine if we had a Holt or even a Morrison to win these balls. But we don''t. Right players: wrong system. Or, if your prefer: right system: wrong players.

The midfield has a balance to it. A couple of holding players in the centre: two from Fer, Howson, Bradley J and Tettey. And the creativity comes from the two wingers: Two from Snoddy, Redmond, Pilks and Benno (when fit). Relying on the wingers for creativity, especially when we''re playing a left footer on the right and a right footer on the left, so that they have to cut back before crossing, which changes the angle of the cross to favour the centre back, does of course mean that we need to be playing a big robust target man to make something of those crosses. Holty, or Morrison maybe. On the other hand, if we were the kind of team that has no target man, but only a "modern" forward always looking to make intelligent runs behind defenders, and pull them out of position, someone like RVW or Hooper, then it would be crazy to play with a midfield whose creativity lies on the wings. One would expect that to lead to a lot of possession, a lot of crosses, and no end product. If we were that kind of team, we''d need to have a creative midfield playmaker, someone who would see the runs and play the ball in behind the defenders. Someone like Wes.

Sorry, meant to say: Either (a) he is a manager who has not managed to communicate to his players who he wants to take this crucial role; or (b) he is a manager whose players don''t listen to him.

Well, Hughton''s admission that he wanted RVW to take the penalty is pretty damning. Either (a) he is a manager who has now managed to communicate to his players who he wants to take this crucial role; or (b) he is a manager whose players don''t listen to him.

When Hughton joined us a friend who is a Birmingham City fan told me that (a) Hughton was a good organiser who would sort our defence out and keep us up; and (b) that the downside was that within not much more than a year we wouldn''t care about staying up because the ultra defensive approach would cause us to fall out of love with football. I''m starting to doubt (a).

Probably the worst time to be playing Hull - newly promoted team, first home match in the Premier etc etc. And the Chelsea game suggested their weakness is in defence, and, whatever side one is on in the Great Hughton Debate, nobody can realistically expect us to go there and plan to put them under pressure from the off. Not CH''s style. It''s the kind of game we''ve been losing for years. If we win, I''d take that as evidence that we''ve really moved up a level. And we could deal Hull''s confidence a potentially significant blow. But I don''t think a draw would merit the meltdown that would probably follow on these boards. Lose, and you''d have to say we''re still flattering to deceive.

I''m amazed that no one has recognised the tactical brilliance that is behind our new kit. As our results faltered earlier this year, Holty was vocal in complaining that the old all yellow kit "made him look fat". Clearly, there''s no way he can possibly lead the line, let alone score goals, when his positive self image was being undermined by the feeling that he looked fat in the all yellow shirt. At moments of extreme pressure his self image was so undermined that he was either unwilling or unable to start matches, or, when he was sent on, was seen to try desperately to get himself sent off so that he could remove the offending all yellow top as soon as possible. And, since Holty is team captain, and the leader of the group, he no doubt spoke for others. With the team''s self image compromised by the all yellow shirt, our slump to a near certain relegation was inevitable. Fortunately, Hughton / McNally / Delia / Holty at the head of a players'' rebellion (select or delete according to your prejudices) spotted the problem in time. The new kit was designed with green panels down the side, subtly styled to be wider at the bottom than the top with the result that the yellow front panels taper downwards in a subtle but never the less pronounced "V" effect thereby ensuring that the players not only don''t look, or feel, fat, but that they appear as the athletic specimens that they are. Merely recording the video for the new kit lifted morale sufficiently to ensure that we thrashed West Brom, and once they got to actually wear it, the players'' confidence and self image was sufficiently boosted to enable us to win a the Etihad. Get the tracksuit tops right, and our match on the Champions League will be irresistible. Oh, and the new England shirt is awful. Looks like Germany, and the players will feel fat in it.

[quote user="Nicko"]I really really rate Howson. He''s been excellent in the past few weeks. More specifically, Howson operates better against less formidable opposition. I.e WBA Villa etc. He seems to get overrun for the bigger teams where I think Hoolahan is a bit better at retaining the ball.[/quote] Agreed. Howson was excellent. But, as yesterday showed, it''s not a choice between Howson and Wes. The "Howson or Wes" debate is false. Both can play in the team, Howson as attacking midfielder and Wes off the main striker. Howson scored, Wes got two assists and game so close to scoring himself on several occasions (the run up to Snoddy''s goal, the long shot saved by Forster). The team''s attacking potential was transformed yesterday, despite being almost the same side that''s played perviously, by (1) playing Howson as an attacking midfielder, not holding next to BJ, whilst also starting Wes; and (2) Giving the fullbacks freedom to go forward; by the look of it they''ve ben instructed not to go beyond the half way line in previous games; and (3) by the confidence John Ruddy seems to give the back line. And, in fairness, (4) by facing a WBA side who were on the beach.

There is no "clause in the transfer" because there is no transfer. Transfers can only be made in the transfer window, remember? We have simply reached an agreement with the club and player as to a fee and salary. And paid a deposit, which we''ll presumably get back if it doesn''t go through. If RVW doesn''t want it to go through, it won''t, though I''ve no doubt that he fully intends to honour the agreement. This sort of thing happens all the time, but is not normally made public because the buying club fears that making a deal that is not set in stone public will simply alert other clubs to the availability of the player and to the price they''d need to pay to gazump the intended transfer. Quite why NCFC made it public in this instance, I don''t know. If the thought was to inspire our remaining strikers, it''s clearly (and unsurprisingly) had the opposite effect. Maybe season ticket sales were down, I don''t know.

QPR have spent beyond their means in a gamble to stay up. If it works, the pressure - from fans, from the media - will be on other clubs to do the same. And, since not every gamble can work, some of the clubs who are tempted so to do will go to the wall. That''s not good for football. It would be good for the game if they went down.

Against both Everton and Southampton we were overrun in midfield playing 4-4-2. And unfortunately, both Holty and Becchio look off the pace at the moment. So taking a man out of midfield to accommodate two off form players, and getting overrun in the middle, doesn''t make sense, especially away from home. We played our best football, and looked most secure in 4-2-3-1. Start with that. Bradley and Tettey if he''s fit, failing which Howson will have to start. If Pilks isn''t fit Elliot B down one wing, Snoddy on the other, and Wes in the hole. Whichever of Holty or Becchio looks most fit to lead the line. Our most dangerous striker of late has been KK, in the final quarter against Everton, and in the first half before he tired v Southampton. He''s not match fit, so bring him on around 55 to 60 minutes after Holty or Becchio have put in a shift. And if we''re chasing the game and need a Plan B, take Elliot B off, and put Simeon Jackson on if fit, Wes to the left, play 4-4-2 for the last 15/20 minutes. KK would win the flick ons, and Jackson might have the pace and mobility to get on the end of them, which (with the best will in the world) neither Holty or Becchio do on current fitness / form.

It''s between Bassong and Snoddy for first and second, probably too close to call at the moment. In third place, I''d go for Wes. It''s instructive to note that at the beginning of the season Hughton (rather like Lambert) didn''t seem to trust Wes. We played 4-4-2, and after five games had three points and were showing relegation form. Wes had started only once, and not come off the bench until the second half of the Liverpool game, when we were already losing 3-0. Back then the crowd was pretty restless with Hughton (how quickly things changed!) and chanted for Wes, and when he came on in the LIverpool game the Barclay and Snakepit chanted "Hallelujah". We "drew the second half" 2-2. As ever, Wes kept showing for the ball, was always an outlet, and we started to play on the ground. From thereon in, Wes was a near fixture, the ball was on the ground much more, and although we lost 4-1 at Chelsea next that score flattered them, the performance was much improved, the next game was the 1-0 win over Arsenal, and we embarked on the 10 match unbeaten run. And, no, this isn''t an anti Hughton post, in my book it''s hugely to the guy''s credit that he showed some flexibility. But the fact remains that after a poor start our season turned round, not when Bassong came into the team, not when Snoddy came into the team, but when Hughton found a way to accommodate Wes, and he got us playing on the floor a bit more. So, Wes in third place for me.

He is already a legend. He stuck with the club when we went down, unlike the Clingans and Crofts, vowed to put it right, and did. Always wants the ball, always offers an outlet, he changes the way we play for the better.

Hughton''s substitutions were late and cautious, to protect the point. Hard to argue, though, that stopping QPR winning and getting up some momentum ahead of a couple of tricky games for them was almost as important as not losing ourselves. Anyway, look at the substitutions of the master tactician Redknapp. Garrido (who has been ok so far this season) was having a nightmare, Wright Philips going past him at will. With over half an hour to go, the ref finally books Garrido for yet another foul on Wright Philips. Now Garrido has to face Wright Philips for the rest of the game, knowing he hasn''t stopped him once legally, and he can''t risk another card. So what does Harry do? Take Wright Philips off immediately. Go figure.

It''s the Hall of FAME. Not the Hall of Utmost Quality. Or the Hall of the Best Eleven / Hundred Players we''ve ever had. As the reaction here to the King of Spain''s departure shows, he achieved fame amongst the fans here, not simply or indeed mainly for his performance on the field, but for his dignified reaction in the face of being scapegoated by Roeder, and by his determination, loyalty and persistence that saw him win back a place as a valued squad member. As an example of how to respond to adversity, without throwing his rattle out of his pram, then, yes, he''s famous. Put him in!

A model pro, from League One to the Premier League. Yes, (hopefully) he was well paid - but there''s plenty of others who are who don''t show his loyalty, dignity and commitment. Good luck, Simon, you''ll always be the King of Spain here.

I don''t think we can make judgements about who is on dodgy ground until we have details of what Lambert is alleging, and what the club''s response is. A chance for Archant''s journalists to show their mettle?

So you know what happened, do you? All that''s in the public domain (thanks to Mr Bowkett) is that Lambert has claimed unfair dismissal. That''s a specific claim in law, with a cap on compensation of £72,300 so he simply can''t be claiming £2,000,000 by that route. But if he''s claiming unfair dismissal then it follows that his position is that he didn''t want to leave but was either sacked or forced out. IF it were true that the most successful manager we''ve had in over a decade wanted to stay but was either dismissed or forced out then the person I''d be angry with wouldn''t be him, it would be the person who dismissed or forced him out. At this time the full story isn''t in the public domain. We know odd snippets; the fact that we''ve had compensation for Culverhouse and Carva, but not for Lambert. The fact that Hughton was in post quickly. The fact that something happened to unsettle Lambert''s captain. But I''m reserving judgement until the full story comes out. Which it will, eventually.

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]This thread mentions a possible cock up by McNally....... er I don''t thinks so [/quote] Hmmm. McNally said at the time that he would "fight" to keep Lambert (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18057488). Clearly, McNally lost that "fight". Plus, we''ve had no compensation. But if the truth were that Lambert was either dismissed or forced out (whether or not the forcing out technically amounted to a constructive dismissal in law) then that''s not consistent with what McNally said about fighting to keep Lambert. I think we have a right to be told what happened.

Hold on a minute. There''s a statutory cap on compensation for unfair dismissal (£72,300). If, as you say, Lambert has made an unfair dismissal claim, then then the claim can''t be for two million. And if, as you say, it''s an unfair dismissal claim, then don''t you think we need to find out what it says before branding anyone a scumbag? If the most successful manager at the club for more than a decade and one of the most successful ever was either dismissed or forced out ("constructive dismissal") then that''s not consistent with what we''ve been told so far, and (if it''s true) I think we''re entitled to an explanation.

The OP is right to say that it''s not looking good for us at the moment, and that team spirit (or lack of it) may be a factor (both within the team and the club as a whole). But Holt''s transfer request was a symptom of that, not a cause.

Those were carefully chosen words.  He said "At this moment in time I never want to leave".Which leaves the door not merely ajar but wide open to the possibility that at some future moment he will want to leave.   We''re his fourth club in six years.    By August, he''ll have been with us longer than he''s been anywhere else.   I''d love him to stay but the reality is that he''ll go, and probably soon (especially if we do well).    And when it happens no point wailing or trying to find scapegoats; McNally got Lambert in, and we''ll have to trust McNally to get it right next time too.In the mean time, enjoy Lambert whilst we have him.

She works for the club''s solicitors, Leathes Prior:http://www.leathesprior.co.uk/workingwithus/training-contracts/our-trainee-experiences/kelly-skeggs/

[quote user="Jonnyboy"]Also would have been probably more timely about a month ago?!?[/quote] If the money had been available a month ago, do you think the club would have announced it then?  The price of the players we did bid for would just have gone up.

What astonishes me is not that he got the decision wrong.   It happened at high speed, not in slow motion, Holt does have form for this kind of thing, there had just been an altercation over the drop ball, Harte made a meal of it.    The ref is human, he got it wrong, that happens.   And I do believe it cost us two points, but hopefully it will even out somewhere over the season.What astonishes me is that the referee had the opportunity to rescind the decision having reviewed the video evidence before he wrote his match report.   This wasn''t a close call, no one who saw it thought it was anywhere near a red card.  So, if the ref is not biased, and capable of being objective, how come he did not rescind the decision when he saw the video evidence?   If he''d come out then and said "It looked different to me on the pitch, but having seen it on the video, I made a mistake" then, whilst I''d still be disappointed, frankly he''d have my respect.   But to have looked at that video evidence, and refused to rescind the decision, well, that raises real questions about the guy''s judgement for me.