Just for fun....

[Badger 2,405]

I think that he would get us promoted

[Capt. Pants 4,227]

Nice guy, a real gent but a no from me. Besides I couldn''t put up with nits on here spelling is name wrong.

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

Personally, i would rather gargle with sulphuric acid while a pit bull gores my testicles.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Personally, i would rather gargle with sulphuric acid while a pit bull gores my testicles.........

Maybe you could allow me to film the above on my smartphone......? Then I could submit the recorded event as next years John Lewis''s Christmas Advert.......Here''s hoping ;-)

Could you perform it on a trampoline? It would then give the knacker gnashin'' Pit Bull more of a challenge.....and would certainly be more visually entertaining for the viewers......Oh, and gargle a slightly watered down sulphuric acid - so as you suffer a somewhat slower more painful torn testicle''s departure.....

[im spartacus canary 0]

No

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

Google it, it''s probably been done already.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Trust me it hasn''t been done......I really don''t wish to be accused of plagiarism.......

[westcoastcanary 173]

There is no point in asking would we have Hughton back. There is however point in recognising that it was a mistake to get rid of him. Which of CH or AN is best qualified to develop the club and the team with the ultimate objective of becoming established in the EPL? Chris Hughton, no question.

Feedthewolf wrote: "Unarguably a very nice man, but I was delighted to see the back of him because I''d had more than I could take of his one-dimensional negative tactics."

If you look at Hughton''s managerial career as a whole it is patently obvious that the "one dimensional negative tactics" which everyone on here complains about are not typical of Hughton teams. They were a pragmatic attempt to achieve what he was tasked to do, namely keep us up at all costs that season. 

Re. the comment about his having a talented squad at his disposal, if anything has been proven to be "one-dimensional" it is not CH but that City squad, which showed itself quite incapable of adaptation. The core of that squad remains, and the one-dimensionality is as obvious now as it was then, irrespective of manager. Hughton knows that successful teams are founded on good defence; AN learned that lesson mid-way through last season; City fans used to accept it too but apparently no longer. 

[morty 0]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]

There is no point in asking would we have Hughton back. There is however point in recognising that it was a mistake to get rid of him. Which of CH or AN is best qualified to develop the club and the team with the ultimate objective of becoming established in the EPL? Chris Hughton, no question.

Feedthewolf wrote: "Unarguably a very nice man, but I was delighted to see the back of him because I''d had more than I could take of his one-dimensional negative tactics."

If you look at Hughton''s managerial career as a whole it is patently obvious that the "one dimensional negative tactics" which everyone on here complains about are not typical of Hughton teams. They were a pragmatic attempt to achieve what he was tasked to do, namely keep us up at all costs that season. 

Re. the comment about his having a talented squad at his disposal, if anything has been proven to be "one-dimensional" it is not CH but that City squad, which showed itself quite incapable of adaptation. The core of that squad remains, and the one-dimensionality is as obvious now as it was then, irrespective of manager. Hughton knows that successful teams are founded on good defence; AN learned that lesson mid-way through last season; City fans used to accept it too but apparently no longer. 

[/quote]Lambert spoiled us into thinking we could have blitzkreig football on a budget. It worked for a while anyway.....

[westcoastcanary 173]

Yes, but even Lambert knew you can''t succeed long term on such a fragile basis. Ask any Villa fan about his time there; you''d think that were describing Chris Hughton at Carrow Road!

[Horse Renoir 1]

See, I always remember Lambert''s football as fast, full blooded counter attacking football. Not gung ho, naive football that couldn''t be maintained at a higher level.

We fought for every ball, pressed with high intensity all over the pitch and got the ball into the box as soon as possible. We conceded a few, because we had pretty average players playing in defence like Ward/Barnett/Whitbread etc, even then it was nowhere near as poor as now because Lambert got every one of those players playing out of their skin almost every game.

We made that approach work then because every player was giving their all. It would have definitely worked again if Lambert had stayed.

We don''t really like the slow, possession based stand off-ish game Hughton and Neil have tried to introduce here. We like fast attacking football backed up by players giving their all and fighting to win every ball back.

I saw a lot of us under Lambert in Leicester last year...except for the fact they had a vastly superior quality of player in pretty much every position.

[Bill 1,788]

"Would you have Hughton back right now?"how long is this ''right now'', as it cannot be the same ''right now'' nine hours later ?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Worthy''s the one to get back.....

Know what I mean?

[Horse Renoir 1]

This team with Huckerby and Ashton after January in it would have survived easily last season under AN, Hughton or pretty much any decent manager. Worthy would be a great appointment if we were looking at settling into mid table Championship mediocrity

[nutty nigel 7,531]

But I read on here that any other manager apart from Alex Neil would get the current lot promoted by March.

It''s funny how the characters change but the scripts are constant...

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="morty"]Would you have Hughton back right now?[/quote]

That''s not really fun is it?

[hogesar 9,658]

Yeah to be fair Morty, fun and Hughton don''t really go together...

[If wed only kept Howie.. 3]

What about Hughton, in his prime, as a player?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="hogesar"]Yeah to be fair Morty, fun and Hughton don''t really go together...[/quote]Did Newcastle have fun, playing attractive and high goal scoring  football under Hughton?  Did Birmingham enjoy Hughton''s high scoring football?Are Brighton having fun under Hughton? With Hughton, it was more like Norwich and Hughton didn''t go together, not "fun".

[Coq au vin 0]

In some form Hughton and Norwich were high-scoring a few weeks ago. Norwich even helped contribute to that elusive clean sheet all Championship sides long for. That can''t be overlooked.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Yeah to be fair Morty, fun and Hughton don''t really go together...[/quote]The "fun" bit was seeing who got stirred up into a frenzy, at the very question.[:)]

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="hogesar"]Yeah to be fair Morty, fun and Hughton don''t really go together...[/quote]Did Newcastle have fun, playing attractive and high goal scoring  football under Hughton?  Did Birmingham enjoy Hughton''s high scoring football?Are Brighton having fun under Hughton? With Hughton, it was more like Norwich and Hughton didn''t go together, not "fun".

[/quote]

I don''t know Lakey, I don''t follow those teams as I support Norwich. And my experience of Hughton is that it''s f*cking terrible.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="hogesar"]Yeah to be fair Morty, fun and Hughton don''t really go together...[/quote]Did Newcastle have fun, playing attractive and high goal scoring  football under Hughton?  Did Birmingham enjoy Hughton''s high scoring football?Are Brighton having fun under Hughton? With Hughton, it was more like Norwich and Hughton didn''t go together, not "fun".

[/quote]

I don''t know Lakey, I don''t follow those teams as I support Norwich. And my experience of Hughton is that it''s f*cking terrible.

[/quote]Before we got Hughton and his name was in the frame for the job, I looked on the other fans'' forums to see what they were saying. Most were saying what a good job he had done.  The reaction of the Newcastle fans when we went there under Hughton was revealing too, sections of the crowd singing his praises loud and clearly. And as for Brighton, their position would suggest they are having quite a bit of fun with a high goal difference and second in the league by a good margin.

[hogesar 9,658]

I was happy when we got Hughton, Lakey. It was what happened whilst he was here that''s led me to a stage where I''d rather have my testicles chainsawed than what another season of football under him.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

 as for Brighton, their position would suggest they are having quite a bit of fun with a high goal difference and second in the league by a good margin.

[/quote]All helped of course when along came Norwich. (Any reference to Duncan Edwards is coincidental. [;)] )

[Rogue Baboon 0]

So we all agree that we don''t want Hughton back due to the dross negative football we were served in the Premier League, but as a Championship manager, there are not a lot of better managers out there...

I still believe it was a mistake to sack Hughton when we did. It should have been in the November international break (ie. this time of year) or we should have stuck with him in the Champs. Has he ever failed in the Champs?

[Barking Mad Barclay Boy 13]

get neyul adams back

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="hogesar"]Yeah to be fair Morty, fun and Hughton don''t really go together...[/quote]The "fun" bit was seeing who got stirred up into a frenzy, at the very question.[:)][/quote]It''s far more fun doing what they did there [:D]

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]So we all agree that we don''t want Hughton back due to the dross negative football we were served in the Premier League, but as a Championship manager, there are not a lot of better managers out there...

I still believe it was a mistake to sack Hughton when we did. It should have been in the November international break (ie. this time of year) or we should have stuck with him in the Champs. Has he ever failed in the Champs?[/quote]

Annoyed me intensely at the time.  I could have taken him being sacked in November after thost two Manchester results/performances, I could have understood him being sacked in January, not that I wanted it......but to do it when they did was just stupid, imo.    I know the crowd had turned, but that was when the board needed to hold their nerve - and they didn''t.  But then again, you have to look at what happened, we got relegated and bounced straight back, so all was redeemed........Would Hughton have got us straight back up?   Maybe, maybe not, but long term, it has always been my opinion that under him the football would have improved eventually, the consistency along with goals would been there and his legacy would have been much better.  He did it the hard way with us - he took us on when we were at a turnng point after PL left.  He would have had a much better tenure if he had taken us on in the championship, got the team playing well, got us promoted and using what he had built up to help keep us up.  If he gets Brighton promoted, I reckon they would do well in the PL under him - he''s got them playing how he wants them - and that is how Lambert kept us up - with the momentum of a couple of seasons consistency under our belts.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

No Lakey, just no.

Hughton had his chance to continue to improve us.

He did so in his first season and I enjoyed that season as he showed he could improve a poor defensive side (though Lamberts NCFC usually found a way to out score the oppo). It wasn''t perfect and he was lucky we still had Holty (who unlike RVW was a player who could find a way to score no matter what the attacking limitations of the formation) but he succeeded with the resources available to him and job was done.

Even through the following summer, CH made some decent signings and we all knew that now the defensive solidity had been improved, scoring goals and taking the game to teams needed to be the next area of improvement.

What happened was not an improvement, in fact it turned out to not even be an attempt at improvement as the tactics became more and more defensive and producing boring football. Th board persevered far too long (and sacked him at the wrong time) but CH proved time and time again he was not willing to change or try something new. The initial promise from the first season was then never followed up.