QHcanary

"Really? REALLY?" Reckon he must be a young un. We''ve had some dreadful teams over the years. Seems some people''s memory of NCFC doesn''t extend back more than four or five years.

"That''s part of our problem greeno, fans have yet to properly understand the League we are in and what we can realistically expect to achieve at our stage of development." It''s just a childish "I want it all, and I want it now" attitude. I wonder how many would take the relative stability that west brom enjoy now? Plenty, I reckon. Of course, they''d completely ignore how west brom got there by yo-yo-ing up and down for a few years. Something that we''ve managed to not do so far.

Eadie4england, No one is comparing him directly with Coooody. It''s more the way people are calling for him to play as if he''ll be the saviour of our season, without any real substance to their claims. Just like loads of people did with McDonald. If he goes in January, people will no doubt be crying about it for years.

We played better than them first half, and took our chance when it came. They improved scone half and we saw them off, without ever looking particularly troubled. I''m not sure why this is surprising to anyone. We played a proper 442 today, so were always bound to give up a fair bit of possession in midfield after the half time rocket up their @rses. People call for a 442, but forget the practicalities of playing like that. Especially with several first team players out.

"Hands up who thinks Spurs will get relegated...............nah, thought not" That''s not the point he''s making, and you know it. A 7-0 drubbing can never be made to look good, but it puts a different spin on things when you see Man City dole out the same treatment to a side that would expect to be challenging for champions league spot after spending £100m+.

[quote user="Making Plans"][quote user="QHcanary"]The fact remains that up to now we''ve played the entire top 9 clubs. [/quote]Wrong - we haven''t played Liverpool (2nd) or Man U (6th).We''ve also played Villa (12th), Hull (13th) and Cardiff (14th) and got one point from them.[/quote] Quite right. Wtf was I reading?! Still. Our fixture list up to the 10 game point was heavily weighted with top 6 teams. It''s the upcoming few months before the last 4 games that will define the season.

[quote user="Making Plans"]Two points.1. The difference for me is that under Lambert, no matter what the situation, in the majority of games I always felt that we had a chance of getting a result. Under Hughton I don''t. 2. I''m fed up with the excuse about "this seasons fixtures have been pretty heavily skewed". Presumably that means that when you''re in 16th position you shouldn''t worry because most of the teams we''ve played are above us in the league. [/quote] You can be fed up with whatever you want. The fact remains that up to now we''ve played the entire top 9 clubs. At 10 games we''d played the top 7 (I think). That''s a harsh fixture list. [/devilsadvocate]

Less points last season, but a better position. Would you rather 18th on 60 points or 1st on 45? Ridiculous, but you get the point. Have we actually strengthened more than the teams around us over the last 2 seasons? We did precious little in transfers last season, defence aside. We might have caught up a little this year in terms of overall squad quality. I''m genuinely not making excuses for him. It''s getting to the point where I want change, if only to hear something different, but I try to remain pragmatic.

Apologies. Lambert...1.2 points per game. Typing fail. The point stands.

Premier league only... Paul lambert: 1.12 points per game. Chris Hughton: 1.10 points per game. This isn''t a defence of Hughton. I''m getting pretty bored of it TBH. It''s not the best to watch, and the bullsh1t I have to listen to is staggering, but he''s not really doing any worse than the "messiah", and this seasons fixtures have been pretty heavily skewed by the number of top 6/7 clubs we''ve played. Discuss.

"Does anyone know when mcnally deleted his twitter?" To quash any conspiracy theories... I have it on good authority that he disabled his account for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with anything at the club.

"to be honest he should know games up like Holloway and leave by mutual consent." You do know that that phrase is just a nice way of saying someone has been sacked, right?

Mackay...no chance. Look at the way he set Cardiff up last week. Parked the bus. Defended way too deep. They were woeful. It wouldn''t be any better than now. I''d take Zola.

I''ve defended Hughton up until now. Not because I necessarily thought he was the answer to all our prayers, but because I felt the criticism from some was unfair and premature. I always said last year that the 12/13 season was to build and things needed to get better this year. Despite some promising signs recently it doesn''t look like that is going to happen. I won''t be going as far as baying for blood, but I do think the time has come. Look on the bright side. We''ll be first on MOTD.

What makes me think we''d have had less of the ball? I''ve watched us at with 4 in midfield. We struggle. It might have evened things up in terms of possession, and as such we wouldn''t have dominated as completely as we did. You''re right in one thing though. Today wasn''t normal. How many times a season does a team in the premier league have 31 shots? Almost never. It''s even more rare that a dominant performance like that results in a 0-0. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the formation or the tactics. The only mistake I think we made was bringing off hooper, but that doesn''t change the fact that we should have scored.

You must have missed the 2 free headers that Martin had today from set pieces. Both of them should have at least hit the target. That''s just off the top of my head. There may have been others, but I might be forgetting them amongst the other 29 attempts at goal we had. To bring the lambert goal into it is crazy. That was borne out of complete defensive ineptitude from Berbatov, despite the best efforts of Parker to direct him.

Jesus. You just don''t get it. If we play 4 in midfield we don''t hold on to the ball anywhere near as well as we did today. If we haven''t got the ball as much, we can''t create as manage Chances. MOTD didn''t give a true reflection of the game, but even the BBC commentary made mention of the fact that Marshall''s goal was living a charmed life.

Fer was out of order? I''m not sure how. It might have been unsporting, but he did nothing that wasn''t within the rules of the game. The goal should have stood. I wouldn''t really have wanted to win that way, but it wouldn''t have been an undeserved win.

[quote user="barclay_boy111"]I have a twitter feed full of fans that want shot of him. Yes morty their are people that don''t agree with you deal with it D!ck[/quote] And they''ll mostly be morons that don''t know their arsehole from their earhole.

[quote user="The gut"]Sorry QH, for not having your level of understanding football but we can play the hand we are dealt. I foolishly thought that playing a high standard of amateur football for twenty years, captaining every team played for, managing high standard amateurs (with a couple of ex pros too) and my coaching courses under my belt would at least allow me to have an opinion. I agree there are good reasons why teams do not play 4 4 2. But I disagree that we needed to employ tettey to protect our back four this afternoon. I do not think that would''ve affected us keeping hold if the ball. Only my stupid opinion, I thank you for condescending education.[/quote] Sorry if you think I''m condescending, but you make almost impossible not to be. You clearly haven''t seen what happens to us when we play 4 in midfield. We invariably struggle to keep the ball, and leave our back 4 horribly exposed. The fact that we had 31 shots suggests that there wasn''t much need to change the system today. We were utterly dominant, and Marshall made 10 saves, apparently. I didn''t agree with the hooper/elmander sub, but that''s my only real cause for complaint. If that''s not enough for you (other than winning the game...we all want that), then I don''t know what is. Hughton can''t score the goals for us.

[quote user="nutty nigel"]A guy in the pub told me he didn''t make any saves. And he was at the game! But he knew the time of every substitution and how often Hughton blew his nose[:S] [/quote] Many people will try and convince you of things that back up their stance on the state of the club. I find they''re usually utter idiots.

[quote user="The gut"]I can''t speak for anyone else nutty, but I did not boo the players. I certainly did not join in with chanting Hughton''s name today. I think it was arguably Hughton''s worst tactical display today. It led me to boo for only my second time in many many matches. A reflection of how bad I thought the manager had got it wrong. Not the players.[/quote] What exactly, other than the inability of the players to put the ball in the net, were you displeased about? The manager can''t get on the pitch and finish chances off for the players. We hammered Cardiff today. More or less total domination. The only problem was it was one of those rare days when the ball just won''t go in. Marshall made save after save. Their defenders made several goal saving tackles. What do you think we could have done tray to create even more chances than we did?

[quote user="The gut"]QH you might think it is ridiculous but I think if we had sacrificed a defensive player for an attacking one then we would''ve had more chance of converting those chances. I think that is obvious rather than ridiculous. With another player in and around their box to trouble their defence it might not have been one if those days and the ball had an increased opportunity of being in the back of the net.[/quote] You don''t understand football very well, do you? Take a player out of that midfield and we struggle to hold on to the ball. If we don''t have the ball we can''t score, no matter how many players we have around the box. I''d have thought that was obvious, but apparently not. There''s a reason that not many of the teams in the premier league play a genuine 4-4-2 these days.

RVW didn''t come on for Hooper at that point because he clearly isn''t fully fit and to bring him on at that point was a risk. I''m not sure I''d have brought elmander on at that point as hooper was pretty good throughout the game, but that''s kind of academic in this context. As the game went on the risk:reward became favourable enough to risk RVW for a few minutes. If anyone struggles to understand this, they''re a bit thick. Sorry :)

[quote user="The gut"]Ffs Read it again. The essence of what is being said. I''ve expressed my thoughts as best I can, picking up on individual words rather than a sentence in which they appear is just typical of what people face on this board. I will try in my uneducated state to be clearer ( you don''t have to have a degree in English to understand football do you???). I think:- Hughton is generally defensive first. Today we did attack. I felt we could have attacked more, and be more threatening if Hughton had sacrificed a defensive midfielder for an attacker. I think Hughton should definitely have made that decision today. I don''t think I have seen more clearly obvious decision. In my very most humble opinion, I felt he could''ve and should''ve changed his tactic from defence first, to attack first during the game (long before the 86th minute). Today I find this monotonous because he always does (and i accept that) and today he still continued with it when he didn''t need to (I find that hard to accept). Now get off your high forum horses and allow people to have an opinion, without smartarse snipes. Just posting your own opinions is sufficient. I read them without sniping. I have played and watched enough football to have thoughts of my own.[/quote] I can''t remember the last time I saw a team in the premier league have 31 shots. Your post claiming that we could have attacked more is ridiculous. Whatnots could we do other than put the ball in the back of the net? It was one of those days.