It's Character Forming

Hughton did win those "must-win" games - until West Brom - but they did come up regularly for him.   Even at the time it was clear that we needed a win from the West Brom game to be on course for safety, but at the very least we needed to avoid defeat.   After we lost to West Brom, I remember Robbie Savage saying on MOTD he thought we''d be relegated - this was before Hughton was sacked.  And I think he was right - we''d have still gone down if Hughton had been kept on and I doubt if we''d have got another point.   And it was really annoying that they were critical of Hughton being at risk of the sack in the months before.  We were in a similar position to teams like West Brom, Fulham etc who sacked their managers, so why they had an issue with Hughton being under pressure I''ve never understood.

Complacency is always a huge risk when you go down a league - players thinking they should be able to walk it.   Remember ''95 and Chase having those t-shirts done saying "on loan for one season only" ?  And we''ll never forget what happened in our first game down in L1.   So it''s a worry.  But until we get in a new manager and get the squad overhauled, it''s premature to say we''re going to struggle.

[quote user="swjf50"]. Only 2 fluke results against Man City and WBA who weren''t bothered saved us from the drop. .[/quote]   We could have lost both those games and we would still not have been relegated (sigh).   This year I don''t think it''s anything to do with playing one up front - few Prem teams start games with two up front.  The main problem for me is that we let Holt go and spent £13.5m on two strikers very different from Holt who needed the team to play in a different way to be effective.  Then we played in a way that was totally unsuited to them - the biggest signings we have ever made.  Also, we lost the defensive solidity which we''d had under Hughton the year before, especially away from home where under Hughton we lost 12 of 16 games.   Could we have changed the way we play to get the ball regularly to players like RVW and Hooper in goal-scoring positions ?  I''m damned sure Hughton should have known the answer to this before he spent the money on them, but clearly he didn''t.

Well if the players are as persistent as you there''s a chance....

Goodnight Vienna

Knew that was coming

OMG with this scoreline we''re down, I''m gonna top myself...

People tend to assume "on the beach" means a team will be rolled-over easily but that''s naive. Truth is at the end of the season when nothing rides on a game for a team, the results can be wild and unpredictable. Sure, sometimes a team don''t really turn up.  But then you can have mad results like WBA drawing 5-5 with Man U at the end of last season, or Swansea coming back twice to beat Wigan.   Sometimes the team with nothing to play for can play with freedom in a way that they can''t normally.  People forget that last season at Man City, both we and they were "on the beach" and it allowed our team to express themselves in a way they rarely did under Hughton, while Man City played in fits and starts, only really going for it when they fell behind.   WBA are not exactly resting for the FA cup and probably won''t have too many players in the World Cup. But they''ve only just reached safety after we failed to win on Sunday so it would be only natural if they relax tonight and don''t go for it.   I''d certainly expect Sunderland to get a point or three tonight, but an away win is completely possible.

BTW bsports has us down with a 5% chance of surviving.  stranger things have happened.

I would hope it would be a major shock to everyone at the club especially the players, and would give us momentum for a re-launch next year under a new manager (whether or not NA).   Also a few players who haven''t been up for the fight recently would defo be cleared out.  Our strike force particularly would need a complete overhaul.  Hopefully the club would get in some new strikers that fit with the way we want to play....   I''m not losing too much sleep "worrying" about this though.

There are relatively few that have made themselves attractive transfer targets I''d say.   Ruddy is the obvious candidate for me.  And if a good offer comes in, could we really say no ?  He''s done well for us.  If our GKs next season would be Bunn/Rudd competing for the starting position with Nash as backup, is that a problem ?  So it would get in a lump of cash, reduce wages, and still leave us with good cover at that position. Snodgrass I also expect to go -  a good offer from Celtic and we''d probably agree to sell him.  Again, with Josh Murphy coming through, we have pretty good cover in that position.   Pilks is more tricky given his injury record.  What will his attitude be ?  Do we actually want to sell him if we can?   Hooper I''d like to keep but if Celtic offer £5m to take him back, could we get a more versatile striker for the same money ?   Fer I expect to go, perhaps not to the Prem but abroad - again, not a problem if we can get in a replacement who''s a bit more committed.   Tettey and Olsson are two quality players I really hope we can keep hold of - both would do well in the Champ IMO.   As for RVW, who knows ?

He would certainly be better at playing away than Hughton was

No, WC simply sees himself as an 1p5wich fan.

[quote user="Canary Poirot"]What this season has shown (once again in my opinion) is that the Scottish premier league is on a par with the championship and league 1 quality wise. Hooper would be quite successful at those levels. I''m also thinking the Portuguese top division is of a similar level of quality.[/quote]   I just don''t think you can make that sort of comparison based on the chances Hooper has had this season (both in the box and in the team).   Last autumn when he got a regular run in the team and was paired with Elmander he looked very effective as a goal poacher, which is how he played at Celtic.  Played as a lone striker he looked completely ineffective which is not surprising for a player who''s a goal poacher but simply lacks the physical attributes of size/strength or pace needed to play as a lone striker.   Like all our forward line he''s lost his finishing touch as the season has worn on, mainly IMO due to lack of practice.   The answer is simple - he''s a goal poacher and will be effective in a team that can create chances for that sort of player.  This season we haven''t, so he''s not been effective.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree that Hughton has bought Hooper, RVW and indeed Elmander because they look like quality strikers (Elmander plays for Sweden etc etc) and you can just stick them up front and goals will magically result.   I guess the difficulty is that the Holt type role, one-up front battling against Prem CBs, is not a great deal of fun to play - even Holt had enough after a season of playing for Hughton and wanted to move.

With all these rumours, once we know where we''re playing next year we need to sort out the manager ASAP.  Then we need to sort out which of these players - especially all 4 strikers - want a move and who is up for a promotion campaign in the Champ (assuming that''s where we end up).   Whoever wants a move should be sold pronto then we should spend the money on replacements.  Simples.   Elmander presumably will go at the end of his loan; the 4th striking position could be filled by a youth player.  With RVW it really depends if we can get a good fee and if his wages don''t have a relegation clause, then we''ll get rid.   Hooper and Becchio are tough to call - it really depends on whether they have the appetite for it and whether anyone like Celtic makes a good offer for us.  I could see them as an excellent strike pairing in the Champ.

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"] I think the majority of fans still feel that there is a great striker lurking somewhere within RvW but this season has been hugely damaging for his reputation. I still maintain that if you buy a prize orchid then give it to a 5 year old who doesnt water it, you dont conclude that there is something wrong with the species of plant. RvW has been badly misused this season. The question is, was he the kind of player we should have been buying. It seems that if you need a Grant Holt, you buy a Grant Holt, or you change the system so it needs an RvW. What you dont do is put a RvW in a team that needs a Grant Holt and expect things to all work out. There was always a feeling that Hughton never really had a plan on how we were supposed to score and kind of hoped that if he threw enough money at the problem, the stikers could just sort out scoring themselves [/quote] This is spot on and the most annoying thing is that Hughton spent a club record sum on him.  When will we next be able to spend £8.5m on on one player ?    Clearly having spent that money on him, plus another £5m on another poacher-type striker in Hooper, it was crazy that Hughton didn''t rebuild the team to service poacher-type strikers, but he didn''t.  As you say, he kept on playing as if we had Holt up front, why on earth didn''t we spend a few million on a quality player in the Holt mould instead ?   Makes me really angry now....

I watched him closely in pre-season last summer and in our early games.  His touch and general play were excellent.  He was running endlessly pointing for early balls to be played down the channels on the ground... passes which were rarely played.   As a result we had the embarassing statistics charting that he was barely getting a touch of the ball during games, never mind chances to score.   What we''re now seeing is the shadow of the player that we bought, worn down by a season of misuse.  His confidence is completely shot and as a result people are making these sorts of comments.   Well, it''s not that our scouts were shown footage of a different player... it''s just that our (former) manager has turned a quality striker into a wreck.

What annoys me is that the season before we were entirely capable of keeping things tight at the back and grinding out points away from home.  This season we lost that while becoming even less effective up front.  It''s that combination of getting worse at both ends which has seen us relegated.  I don''t understand why our team isn''t good enough this year when last year it was clearly good enough to survive.   I think what has done for us this season is our away form but it''s not having won only two that''s the problem... it''s the fact that prior to Sunday, we had only got two away draws all season (and therefore 14 defeats).  Aside from the top 6 where you''d expect to lose (although you''d hope to come away with a point or two) we should have gone into all those games fighting for at least a point and I think we should have been able to get another 4-5 away draws against teams in the middle and bottom of the table at the very least with our current squad.    That for me is where Hughton has got us relegated.

Unfortunately binners like you will continue to troll on our forum ad nauseam WC. How did the binners do in the end? You were excited at one point that they might make the playoffs I remember.

This article is scary in how prescient it is. Hughton did indeed spend all season switching between 451 which didn''t suit any of our strikers - Elmander looking better in the role than any other except for the glaring omission of a goal threat - and 442 which was the only way to get anything out of our two expensive signings, albeit that only the Hooper/Elmander combo was really effective at scoring for a period last autumn. Sad truth is that the team has never looked as effective as the year before and none of our strikers contributes as much as holt. Hence Redmond being put up front yesterday. Which is a real indictment of Hughton. For me it was clear at the start that both RVw and Hooper are poacher type strikers essentially in competition for one starting spot, which is fair enough as injuries mean you need two quality strikers in the Prem. But what is unforgivable is that having spent £8.5m on RVW it is now clear that Hughton didn''t really have a clear idea of how to use him effectively in our squad. The upshot is that he''s been asked to play in a way that doesn''t suit him and has got progressively worse as the season has gone on until he''s now a shadow of his former self and not worth having on the pitch.

Last week at Man U our tactics were effective in the first half until near the break when a dive earned them a penalty meaning Adams decided to open it up in the second half. Unfortunately the 2nd half had barely started when our midfield backed off Rooney on the edge of the box and we were 2 behind. For the rest of the half we really went for it and created numerous chances but such is the parlous state of our strike force that we couldn''t even take one. At the other end Man U revelled in the time and space that we left them and converted a couple of their chances. Cue much hand wringing and knocking the team/manager on here. Yesterday we were unlucky not toget a blatant penalty in the first half. In the second, Chelsea brought on Hazard who was awesome and for the first 20 minutes we were on the ropes but held out. Then we came into the game and NA made an inspired sub in Redmond upfront who gave theChelsea CBs a real headache whereas I''m pretty sure they''d have comfortably dealt with any from RVW, Hooper or Becchio. An inspired move which gave us several scoring chances. The manager is now getting knocked for not going for it. Well, first that didn''t work so well last week or when we played Chelsea at home and conceded two late goals going for it. It''s revealing that Mourinho was frustrated by our tactics. He know perfectly well it would have improved his chances of winning if we''d played into their hand by opening up the game and going for it. It''s a bit bizarre and depressing to find people saying Jose wishes we had gone for it. Well, duh, that doesn''t mean it was the right thing to do. What happened was that we kept it tight and counter attacked effectively. Unfortunately we didn''t take any chances but I think we probably had a better chance of winning with the approach we took yesterday than we''d have had opening up the game against players like hazard and Willian. There''s also the question of should he have brought on fresh legs without changing the formation but that''s not exactly rocket science for any manager - I''m sure if he''d had someone else on the bench who he felt could have added something like Redmond, he''d have brought him on,but tome there''s no one obvious. So actually I''m more impressed with Adams after yesterday. It''s a tough call for the board given how few games he''s had but at the moment I''d favour him over Malky. The upshot is that the gamble yesterday didn''t pay off abc in football people will always criticise when you don''t get the result, ignoring how narrow the margins are between winning and not. Its always a tough call what to do to try to get the win and I think NA called it right yesterday.

Our approach yesterday gave us a couple of good chances in the final few minutes which unfortunately we couldn''t convert If we''d opened up the probable result is that Chelsea would have scored. I can understand Mourinho being frustrated but that''s tough. I think NA used the best approach to try to get the win. People have short memories and forget what''s happened in the past when we''ve gone for it and ended up with nothing.

Yes I think Adams for the last 12 games would''ve been enough to save us. Ifs and buts though

Crystal ball? No just watching us playing away against the top teams where Hughton has never got anything. As for the "criminal" decision to bring on Redmond for Elmander it caused more problems for Chelsea than we''d given them all game until then. Sometimes I wonder if people actually watch what''s happening on the pitch. If we''d had the penalty we could have won that.